> lying about the goal is what I suppose they meant, and I tend to agree

You think a city official needed to scrounge up some funding and came up with this, a highly visible and obstructive method, instead of raising it indirectly?

No. Locals were demanding officials do something against the rampant overtourism, so they needed to act precisely in a highly visible and obstructive way.

But the main goal was of course to assure whatever they did wouldn't jeopardise tourism as the city's main revenue stream.

5€ is equivalent to a short-term parking fee and won't deter many visitors, except a few that wouldn't have been valuable to the city anyway. It won't make a dent into the actual overtourism problem.

> the main goal was of course to assure whatever they did wouldn't jeopardise tourism as the city's main revenue stream

The whole point is there are boatloads of tourists who contribute nothing to the local economy.

> 5€ is equivalent to a short-term parking fee and won't deter many visitors, except a few that wouldn't have been valuable to the city anyway

This is a lot of cruise ship visitors to Venice. I agree the rate is set too low. But that’s different from judging the primary motivation as a money grab.