For years we have been breaking tourism records. The problem is that a growing part of the islanders no longer celebrates them. It doesn't take much explanation to see why. Housing, saturation, traffic, noise, pressure on services. The demonstrations have only made visible a discontent that has been there for a long time. That is why I believe the debate is no longer about whether we want more or fewer tourists. The debate is who should be in service of whom.It would be absurd to deny all that tourism has brought to an Islands that owe a large part of their prosperity to it. But one thing is to acknowledge it, and another is to take for granted that the interests of our main industry always coincide with the interests of those who live here. A hotelier wants to fill more rooms. A restaurateur, more tables. An airline company, more passengers. This is quite normal. What is no longer so normal is to take for granted that we also need this growth.The question is quite simple. What does a tourist leave us more, what collective costs does their stay generate, and, above all, who pays for them? One only has to look at any tourist area: streets, asphalt, lighting, gardens, sewage, water networks, pumping, waste collection, cleaning, access roads. Many developments grew to accommodate a population that multiplies during a few months, but municipalities have to maintain them all year round. And this pressure has already fully entered our towns and cities: squares, parking lots, water, cleaning, security, maintenance.Part of this additional capacity ends up being paid for with the same budgets that must cover the needs of those of us who live there all year round. And public money, if it goes here, cannot go to housing, children's schools, public transport, dependency, and other needs. The OECD has long warned that tourism depends heavily on public infrastructure and services and that high pressure can affect the resources and quality of life of the host communities. It is curious that we worry so much about the destination being competitive and ask ourselves so little about who pays for this competitiveness.Then, there is the bill that does not go through any Administration. We find it when we look for a flat, when our children cannot become independent, when certain prices adapt to the spending capacity of those who are on holiday for 15 days, but also in things that are more difficult to put into euros: the noise, the queues, the congestion, the loss of tranquility and having to adapt our daily lives for months to a pressure we have not chosen. Tourist and second-home demand competes, also within our villages, with local families who have much less purchasing power. This is hard to swallow: we maintain our villages to make them attractive, we pay taxes all year round, and in the end, some of our children can no longer afford a house there. And all this wear and tear, even if it does not appear in any budget, also comes out of our well-being.That's why I think we are mistaken when we argue whether the appropriate number is 15, 17, or 20 million tourists. The size of the tourism industry should not be decided from the outset. It should be a result. First, we should know what this activity really costs and ensure that the collective costs it generates are part, as much as possible, of the bill paid by those who generate them. Only then will we be able to know what size of the tourism industry is compatible with the general interest.This will increase the price of part of the tourist offering. So what? If someone considers that coming to the Islands is worth that price, they will come. If a business continues to be profitable after paying the costs it generates, magnificent. And if it was only profitable because we were paying part of those costs, perhaps we should ask ourselves why we are so interested in preserving it. Surely fewer people would come. I don't see that as a drama. Less volume should not be the objective. It should be, if appropriate, the result of ceasing to charge residents for part of the bill.And here we must also demand a response from our institutions. Why do we continue to govern tourism thinking so much about the needs of the sector and so little about the well-being of those of us who live here? The tourism sector has every right to defend more activity, more customers, and more profitability. That is its job. But the Government, the councils, and the town halls do not have this mandate. Their mandate is to defend the general interest of the citizens who live here. Always.A good government does not govern to maximize the interests of an industry, however important it may be. It governs to maximize the well-being of citizens. When the interest of the sector and the general interest coincide, perfect. But when they stop coinciding, there is not much room for discussion: the general interest must prevail. That is why we have the right to ask those who govern what criterion they use to decide if a tourism policy is good. More people coming? Increased spending? The sector invoicing more? Or that the islanders live better?We do not govern an industry. We govern a society. For too long we have asked residents to understand the needs of our main industry. Perhaps the time has come to ask our main industry to understand the needs of the residents.Because we are the ones who live here, the ones who vote here, raise our children here and will leave these Islands to those who come after. Tourism has been and will continue to be an extraordinary tool for prosperity. But it is that: a tool. It is not the end goal. And if fewer tourists have to come for the islanders to live better, I don't see why we should be afraid of it. In the end, this is the only measure that really matters: that tourism helps us to live better, not worse.