resident

PARIS — Long lines beneath I.M. Pei’s glass pyramid in Paris have become as much a part of the experience as the “ Mona Lisa ” itself.

Now the Louvre is putting a higher price on that pilgrimage, raising admission prices on Wednesday for most non-European visitors by nearly half as it tries to shore up finances after repeated strikes, chronic overcrowding — and a brazen French Crown Jewels heist that shook the institution.

The museum said the 45% price hike to 32 euros ($37) from 22 euros is part of a national “differentiated pricing” policy announced early last year that’s coming into force across major cultural sites, including the Versailles Palace, the Paris Opera and the Sainte-Chapelle.

But French worker unions have denounced the Louvre ticketing change, saying it undermines the universal mission of the world’s most visited museum — home to the “Venus de Milo” and the “Winged Victory of Samothrace.”

Some visitors echoed those concerns outside the Louvre on Wednesday.

“Culture should be open to everyone — yes — at the same price,” said Laurent Vallet, visiting Paris from Burgundy.

Despite the hike, workers walked out again Monday in the latest strike over pay and working conditions, thrusting the museum’s internal strain back into public view.

‘We’re still going to go’

The change affects visitors from most non-EU countries, including the United States, which typically accounts for the majority of the Louvre’s foreign tourists.

Under the new structure, visitors who are neither citizens nor residents of the EU — or Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway — will pay the higher rate.

The new price applies to individual visitors outside Europe; guided groups will pay 28 euros, with tours capped at 20 people “to maintain the quality of the visit,” the museum said.

Still, some tourists questioned the logic of charging visitors more. “In general, for tourists things should be a little bit cheaper than local people because we have to travel to come all the way here,” said Darla Daniela Quiroz, visiting from Vancouver.

Others said they would pay anyway. “It’s one of the main attractions here in Paris … We’re still going to go,” said Allison Moore, a Canadian tourist from Newfoundland visiting with her mother. “Hopefully it’ll be all worth it in the end.”

The CGT Culture union has denounced the policy, arguing it turns access to culture into a “commercial product” and creates unequal access to national heritage

Some categories remain eligible for free admission, though, including visitors under the age of 18.

The last price hike was in January 2024, when the standard entry fee rose from 17 euros to 22 euros.

Not just the Mona Lisa

The Louvre says it is not alone. Versailles and other flagship tourist attractions are adopting similar two-tier pricing this month.

At Versailles, the “Passport” ticket will cost 35 euros in high season for visitors from outside the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, compared to 32 euros for visitors who are citizens or residents of those countries. At Sainte-Chapelle, the ticket rises to 22 euros for visitors from outside those countries, versus 16 euros for those within them, according to heritage officials.

The Louvre said the new tariff will help finance investment under its “Louvre — New Renaissance” modernization project and could bring in as much as 20 million euros more per year.

A heist and an institution under scrutiny

French museums had already been considering higher fees for visitors from outside Europe before the Oct. 19 theft of French Crown Jewels from the Louvre, valued by investigators at about 88 million euros.

However, the robbery that was carried out in daylight, in minutes — was a speed and audacity that intensified scrutiny of how France protects its most prized cultural treasures.

It also fueled debate over how major landmarks should pay for upgrades and whether visitors should carry a bigger share of the cost.

Elsewhere in Europe, the standard entry to Rome’s Colosseum, along with the Forum and Palatine Hill, is 18 euros ($20), and an adult ticket for Athens’ Acropolis is 30 euros ($33).

Strike, strike — and strike again

The Louvre has repeatedly been forced to confront its internal stresses in public.

In June, a wildcat strike by gallery attendants, ticket agents and security staff delayed the museum’s daily opening, leaving thousands of visitors stranded beneath the pyramid.

Workers said the Louvre had buckled under mass tourism, citing unmanageable crowds, chronic understaffing and deteriorating working conditions.

By December, unions said the heist and the building’s condition had turned their long-running grievances into a national reckoning. Louvre workers voted to continue striking until what they consider real change comes to the aging former royal palace.

Adamson writes for the Associated Press. Jeffrey Schaeffer in Paris contributed to this report.

In a remote town in the heartland of the American Midwest, a 90-year-old resident named Elsie Eiler serves as the location’s mayor, clerk, treasurer, bartender, and librarian

A town that once buzzed with life now holds the title of the world’s smallest by population – with just one person calling it home. Nestled in America’s heartland, in the ‘Cornhusker State’, sits Monowi, which boasts the remarkable status of being the least populated incorporated village in the US.

Tucked away in northern Nebraska, merely five miles from the South Dakota border, Monowi’s sole inhabitant is 90-year-old Elsie Eiler, who juggles roles as mayor, clerk, treasurer, bartender, and librarian.

Back in its heyday, Monowi was what the BBC called a “bustling stop on the Elkhorn Railroad” and was home to 150 residents, complete with eateries and even a prison.

Following World War II, though, farming conditions worsened and rural economies took a battering, with American communities disappearing – a fate Monowi seemingly couldn’t avoid.

Over time, local amenities closed down, including grocery stores, the post office, and the school. By 1980, the population had dwindled to just 18 people and, 20 years on, only two remained – Elsie and her husband Rudy, who ran the local tavern.

Tragically, Rudy passed away in 2004, leaving Elsie as the town’s sole resident. The settlement now features in the Guinness World Records as the word’s least populated town.

In a clip shared on Instagram, user Seph Lawless dropped in on Elsie and captured a brief chat for his channel. In the caption, he penned: “In a town with a population of one, I stood face to face with Elsie Eiler – the last resident of Monowi, Nebraska.

“She lives alone in a town that once thrived – now a ghost echoing her memories. Meeting Elsie reminded me that sometimes, the strongest souls dwell in the quietest places.

“This is the story of the last heartbeat of America’s smallest town. One woman. One town. A thousand stories.”

A magnet for curious visitors, the sole establishments still operating are the Monowi Tavern and the poignantly named Rudy Eiler Memorial Library.

Back in 2020, when Elsie was 84, the BBC disclosed that she would put up a notice in the tavern calling for mayoral elections, then simply cast her ballot for herself.

At the time, it was noted that despite the town’s emptiness, folk would still come to her tavern, including her loyal patrons who travelled from 20 to 30 miles away. She told the broadcaster: “It’s like one big family.

“There are fourth and fifth-generation customers coming in. It’s pretty neat when the people you remember as babies are now bringing their babies in to show me.”

When Seph enquired whether she was actually the town mayor, a bemused Elsie highlighted that there was “no one else” and she had to “account for budget”, though she admitted it “doesn’t amount to much”.

In more poignant remarks, she explained that she’d likely remain in the town until they “carry me out”, and once the population dwindles to zero, Monowi would become just “another little place” on the road.

The fiery debate about a proposed ballot measure to tax California’s billionaires has sparked some soul-searching across the state.

While the idea of a one-time tax on more than 200 people has a long way to go before getting onto the ballot and would need to be passed by voters in November, the tempest around it captures the zeitgeist of angst and anger at the core of California. Silicon Valley is minting new millionaires while millions of the state’s residents face the loss of healthcare coverage and struggle with inflation.

Supporters of the proposed billionaire tax say it is one of the few ways the state can provide healthcare for its most vulnerable. Opponents warn it would squash the innovation that has made the state rich and prompt an exodus of wealthy entrepreneurs from the state.

The controversial measure is already creating fractures among powerful Democrats who enjoy tremendous sway in California. Progressive icon Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) quickly endorsed the billionaire tax, while Gov. Gavin Newsom denounced it .

The Golden State’s rich residents say they are tired of feeling targeted. Their success has not only created unimaginable wealth but also jobs and better lives for Californians, they say, yet they feel they are being punished.

“California politics forces together some of the richest areas of America with some of the poorest, often separated by just a freeway,” said Thad Kousser, a political science professor at UC San Diego. “The impulse to force those with extreme wealth to share their riches is only natural, but often runs into the reality of our anti-tax traditions as well as modern concerns about stifling entrepreneurship or driving job creation out of the state.”

The state budget in California is already largely dependent on income taxes paid by its highest earners. Because of that, revenues are prone to volatility, hinging on capital gains from investments, bonuses to executives and windfalls from new stock offerings, and are notoriously difficult for the state to predict.

The tax proposal would cost the state’s richest residents about $100 billion if a majority of voters support it on the November ballot.

Supporters say the revenue is needed to backfill the massive federal funding cuts to healthcare that President Trump signed this summer. The California Budget & Policy Center estimates that as many as 3.4 million Californians could lose Medi-Cal coverage, rural hospitals could shutter and other healthcare services would be slashed unless a new funding source is found.

On social media, some wealthy Californians who oppose the wealth tax faced off against Democratic politicians and labor unions.

An increasing number of companies and investors have decided it isn’t worth the hassle to be in the state and are taking their companies and their homes to other states with lower taxes and less regulation.

“I promise you this will be the final straw,” Jessie Powell, co-founder of the Bay Area-based crypto exchange platform Kraken, wrote on X. “Billionaires will take with them all of their spending, hobbies, philanthropy and jobs.”

Proponents of the proposed tax were granted permission to start gathering signatures Dec. 26 by California Secretary of State Shirley Weber.

The proposal would impose a one-time tax of up to 5% on taxpayers and trusts with assets, such as businesses, art and intellectual property, valued at more than $1 billion. There are some exclusions, including property.

They could pay the levy over five years. Ninety percent of the revenue would fund healthcare programs and the remaining 10% would be spent on food assistance and education programs.

To qualify for the November ballot, proponents of the proposal, led by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, must gather the signatures of nearly 875,000 registered voters and submit them to county elections officials by June 24.

The union, which represents more than 120,000 healthcare workers, patients and healthcare consumers, has committed to spending $14 million on the measure so far and plans to start collecting signatures soon, said Suzanne Jimenez, the labor group’s chief of staff.

Without new funding, the state is facing “a collapse of our healthcare system here in California,” she said.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) spoke out in support of the tax.

“It’s a matter of values,” he said on X. “We believe billionaires can pay a modest wealth tax so working-class Californians have the Medicaid.”

The Trump administration did not respond to requests for comment.

The debate has become a lightning rod for national thought leaders looking to target California’s policies or the ultra-rich.

On Tuesday, Sanders endorsed the billionaire tax proposal and said he plans to call for a nationwide version.

“This is a model that should be emulated throughout the country, which is why I will soon be introducing a national wealth tax on billionaires,” Sanders said on X. “We can and should respect innovation, entrepreneurship and risk-taking, but we cannot respect the extraordinary level of greed, arrogance and irresponsibility that is currently being displayed by much of the billionaire class.”

But there isn’t unanimous support for the proposal among Democrats.

Notably, Newsom has consistently opposed state-based wealth taxes. He reiterated his opposition when asked about the proposed billionaires’ tax in early December.

“You can’t isolate yourself from the 49 others,” Newsom said at the New York Times DealBook Summit. “We’re in a competitive environment. People have this simple luxury, particularly people of that status, they already have two or three homes outside the state. It’s a simple issue. You’ve got to be pragmatic about it.”

Newsom has opposed state-based wealth taxes throughout his tenure.

In 2022, he opposed a ballot measure that would have subsidized the electric vehicle market by raising taxes on Californians who earn more than $2 million annually. The measure failed at the ballot box, with strategists on both sides of the issue saying Newsom’s vocal opposition to the effort was a critical factor.

The following year, he opposed legislation by a fellow Democrat to tax assets exceeding $50 million at 1% annually and taxpayers with a net worth greater than $1 billion at 1.5% annually. The bill was shelved before the legislature could vote on it.

The latest effort is also being opposed by a political action committee called “Stop the Squeeze,” which was seeded by a $100,000 donation from venture capitalist and longtime Newsom ally Ron Conway. Conservative taxpayer rights groups such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. and state Republicans are expected to campaign against the proposal.

The chances of the ballot measure passing in November are uncertain, given the potential for enormous spending on the campaign — unlike statewide and other candidate races, there is no limit on the amount of money donors can contribute to support or oppose a ballot measure.

“The backers of this proposed initiative to tax California billionaires would have their work cut out for them,” said Kousser at UC San Diego. “Despite the state’s national reputation as ‘Scandinavia by the Sea,’ there remains a strong anti-tax impulse among voters who often reject tax increases and are loath to kill the state’s golden goose of tech entrepreneurship.”

Additionally, as Newsom eyes a presidential bid in 2028, political experts question how the governor will position himself — opposing raising taxes but also not wanting to be viewed as responsible for large-scale healthcare cuts that would harm the most vulnerable Californians.

“It wouldn’t be surprising if they qualify the initiative. There’s enough money and enough pent-up anger on the left to get this on the ballot,” said Dan Schnur, a political communications professor who teaches at USC, Pepperdine and UC Berkeley.

“What happens once it qualifies is anybody’s guess,” he said.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, called Newsom’s position “an Achilles heel” that could irk primary voters in places like the Midwest who are focused on economic inequality, inflation, affordability and the growing wealth gap.

“I think it’s going to be really hard for him to take a position that we shouldn’t tax the billionaires,” said Gonzalez, whose labor umbrella group will consider whether to endorse the proposed tax next year.

California billionaires who are residents of the state as of Jan. 1 would be impacted by the ballot measure if it passes . Prominent business leaders announced moves that appeared to be a strategy to avoid the levy at the end of 2025. On Dec. 31, PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel announced that his firm had opened a new office in Miami, the same day venture capitalist David Sacks said he was opening an office in Austin.

Wealth taxes are not unprecedented in the U.S. and versions exist in Switzerland and Spain, said Brian Galle, a taxation expert and law professor at UC Berkeley.

In California, the tax offers an efficient and practical way to pay for healthcare services without disrupting the economy, he said.

“A 1% annual tax on billionaires for five years would have essentially no meaningful impact on their economic behavior,” Galle said. “We’re funding a way of avoiding a real economic disaster with something that has very tiny impact.”

Palo Alto-based venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya disagrees. Billionaires whose wealth is often locked in company stakes and not liquid could go bankrupt, Palihapitiya wrote on X.

The tax, he posted, “will kill entrepreneurship in California.”