[bradleyjg]

I don't have a problem with the general concept. Tourists spend a lot of money coming to visit NYC in no small part because of attractions like the Met. Why should the airlines, hotels, restaurants, bars and so on get some of that but not the actual attraction itself?

That said, as I understand significant mismanagement and scope creep have lead to the financial shortfall that inspired this pricing change. I worry that in signing off on this change the city has rewarded misfeasiance.

[ardit33]

The Met was build on a city property/building, and since the 1870 its mission has been to provide art and culture free of charge.

Should the Met charge us residents but out of state visitors? eg. people that just live across Hudson (NJ)? How about, lets say the visiting parents of somebody that lives in NYC? How about people that lived here and moved away at some point.

On the other hand, the Met has no alliance for the random foreign tourists that come and visit, so charging them is an easy case.

[bradleyjg]

Frankly, I’m still salty that the commuter tax was done away with by the corrupt Sheldon Silver. If the only thing that NJites have pay for is the Met they are getting off very easy. A similar argument can be made for the rest of the country, given our balance of payments with Washington.

The lifelong NYer that moved to Florida last year is a decent point, but it’s also a rather small edge case.

[luckydata]

I think it's pretty simple: do you have a driver license or ID that says "New York State"? Free. You don't? Pay.