For years we have been breaking tourism records. The problem is that a growing part of the islanders no longer celebrate them. There is no need to explain much 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 that the debate is no longer whether we want more or fewer tourists. The debate is who should be at the service of whom.It would be absurd to deny all that tourism has contributed to Islands that owe a large part of their prosperity to it. But it is one thing to acknowledge it, and another to take for granted that the interests of our main industry always coincide with the interests of those of us who live here. A hotelier wants to fill more rooms. A restaurateur, more tables. An airline company, more passengers. It 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? You only need 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 the town councils have to maintain them all year round. And this pressure has already entered our towns and cities in full force: squares, parking lots, water, cleaning, security, maintenance.Part of this additional capacity ends up being paid for with the same budgets that must meet the needs of those of us who live there all year round. And public money, if it goes here, cannot go to housing, kindergartens, public transport, care for the elderly 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 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 an apartment, when our children cannot become independent, when certain prices adapt to the spending capacity of those who are on vacation for 15 days, but also in things harder 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, even within our towns, with local families who have much less purchasing power. This is hard to swallow: we maintain our towns 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 on any budget, also comes out of our well-being.This is why I think we are mistaken when we discuss 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 part of the tourist offer. 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 so 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 it as a drama. Less volume should not be the objective. It should be, if appropriate, the result of ceasing to charge residents 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 clients, 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 criteria they use to decide if a tourism policy is good. Does more people come? Does spending increase? Does the sector bill more? Or do 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 it is time to ask our main industry to understand the needs of the residents.It has been a long time since we passed the point where more tourist activity meant more well-being for the people here. Returning to a level that suits us does not mean arbitrarily deciding how many tourists should come. It means making those who enjoy tourism pay not only for the hotel, the restaurant, the car, or the taxes they already pay, but also for the share of the collective costs generated by their stay, which we continue to bear collectively today. Only then will we know what level of activity is truly compatible with the well-being of those of us who live here. In the end, this is the only measure that really matters: that tourism helps us live better, not worse.