> ...expected to raise millions of euros annually to fund an overhaul of the famous gallery.

Jokes aside (eg, 'guess they have to be able to buy back those stolen jewels somehow!') they have been strongly criticized ('inadequate security systems and ageing infrastructure') and it sounds like an overhaul is well past due. Honestly, $40 to enter the Louvre is not too bad. Expensive, but it is the _Louvre_ and is probably the most amazing museum in the world.

▲

dylan604 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

I'd expect to see this type of fee for non-citizens a lot more. The US is saying a $100 fee for non-citizens to enter national parks will start next year. For the Louvre, I'd be willing to give benefit of the doubt that it's a budgetary decision. For the US though with the current administration, there's always a bit of question if the budgetary reason isn't just a mask for the true intention

▲

kccqzy an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Non-residents not non-citizens. See, the administration still cares about the green card holders and H1B workers, who can still visit the national parks at the lower price.

	▲	rantallion 28 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> green card holders and H1B workers, who can still visit the national parks at the lower price But only until ICE detain them, right?

▲

nicbou an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This was pretty common in Central Asia, and I don't object. It keeps things affordable for locals and available for visitors. I don't mind paying for free museums in other countries, since I'm not subsidising them with my taxes.

▲

philipwhiuk an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

For parks I expect the best approach is to charge for parking. Charging actual entry is tedious.

▲

lionkor an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I would gladly pay 40 bucks to enter, but I think student tickets etc. must exist to ensure people can afford to go to learn.