Hey, there! Log in / Register
City councilor: Boston to see millions more in payments from local non-profits
By adamg on Fri, 11/06/2009 - 1:04pm
The Jamaica Plain Gazette interviews City Councilor Steve Murphy, who says the city is nearing completion on a new "payment in lieu of taxes" plan that could almost triple the $15 million the city now receives from local colleges, hospitals and other non-profit organizations.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
I hope museums and private
I hope museums and private high schools are also included.
And ...
And, the WGBH Educational Foundation, which is sitting on some pricey real estate in Brighton.
don't forget....
Don't forget houses of worship, soup kitchens, the Salvation Army, community service organizations, etc.
Or is it just non-profits with deep pockets (or those perceived as such)?
Yep
However, universities and in some measure hospitals have their own police, public works and even firefighting staffs. College kids don't have students in the public schools, so the ones who are paying rent in Boston are getting less than their share of city services (OK, maybe it evens out on police calls).
The institutions either pour money into the Boston schools or give free health care to Boston residents already. And they have been tax-free by law since even before Menino was mayor (that is, since the founding of the Republic).
Are education and health-care too expensive? You bet. Is the city now empowered to exact economic justice for us? Oh, please. Are the institutions using city services? Not so much. Are they legally obligated to pay the city? Nosirree.
I'm not saying that the colleges and hospitals, churches and museums are ethically pure, but the city sure isn't, either - and the institutions have the law on their side. If I were them, I'd say "right, check's in the mail, kthanxbye." ( Of course, the university CEO salaries reported last month have got to be a PR headache in this fight ..... )
Boston doesn't have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. Squeezing more money out of tax-free institutions won't fix that.
so does that mean they will
so does that mean they will use that and the meals tax to lower taxes,pay down debt etc or just hand out raises and bennies as usual?
PILOT
If the institutions (and for the purposes of this comment I mean the ones the city is clearly targeting - the large colleges and universities, Hospitals and all of their research spinoffs) want to pay more PILOT to cast themselves as good neighbors, good for them and the city.
I have a more macro-level issue. The article says the institutions "make voluntary PILOT payments to make up for their impact on city services". The implication of this that the institutions are a net drain on city services. I do not believe that to be the case.
Many of these institutions have their own police forces, so the city does not have to police their properties or has to police them less. The roads that run by the institutions do not, on average, have to be plowed or repaved any more frequently than any others in the city. The fire department would have to have high-rise firefighting capability even if the Longwood Medical Area was not there (although it could perhaps have fewer hazmat units).
The institutions and the people who work for them spend untold millions of dollars per year at other Boston businesses (which pay taxes to the city, including a newly elevated meals tax), many of which would not even exist without the institutions. Frankly, I am not sure that Boston would be a whole lot better of than many of the rust belt cities if it were not for the concentration of big institutions here.
Look, I think that it is great that the institutions pay PILOT, and I understand why the City wants them to do so. I also understand the concern that too much land is being taken off the City's tax rolls (a point that is eloquently argued by some UHers). I just think that the undercurrent running through the discussion which paints the the institutions as selfish leeches draining the City's budget has not been critically analyzed to the extent that it should be.
Fire and ambulance as an example
A BU dorm has a fire alarm go off, the city responds, that costs money. Without PILOT, BU pays the city nothing and expects such a response...in fact, the city would *have* to respond, if only to assure that the rest of the tax-paying neighborhood wouldn't burn down.
Without BU, the resident/industry/commerce at the same location has a fire alarm go off, the city responds, that costs money...that comes from the resident/industry/commerce's taxes. Service provided, service funded.
That seems pretty straight forward to me as to how PILOT is being used to recover those types of costs. I think there's room to discuss how much BU does for the city in return (sidewalk snow clearing around BU, high-density consumer base, etc), but when such a LARGE percentage of the city is consumed with non-profits because of the academic/medical powerhouse that Boston is, the imbalance probably gets pretty big as to how much the city needs vs how much the city gets without a PILOT balancing.
Understood, but
The example of fire and EMS is a good one, and one I had considered. What I am saying is that I am not sure that those costs, and any others exceed the benefits provided to the City by BU.
Of course, this whole issue goes away immediately if the City of Boston were ever given the legislative authority to levy its own income tax (as NYC and several other large cities have). I would submit, however, that might do more harm than good to Boston, as lots of businesses would decamp to the suburbs.
I don't know either
Yeah, I tried to provide some examples of things that I know BU does for the city, essentially for free, like snow removal from public ways, as tangible examples of the benefits of having BU in the city. I don't know exactly who makes out on the deal, however if the schools are realistically considering paying more in PILOT, I'm guessing they feel they're making out like bandits even still. It's either too intangible for even them to calculate and so not worth the argument with the city, or they've done the math and feel like they benefit more than the few thousand the city's going to ask from each of them in turn.
I also am not sure that many businesses would leave for the suburbs if Boston could levy its own taxes. There are definite benefits that far outweigh most tax increases to being in the city format. However, in many regards, Boston has shot itself in the foot on some of these benefits, like public transportation and affordable housing...so maybe it's not as simple as pointing at NYC and saying "see, they have the tax and not everyone jetted from there".
BU
BU lets Catholic Memorial use their rink for free.....oh wait, thats not a public school never mind.
But I do think BU lets Brookline High School use the rink for free for their hockey teams, and the BU police respond to any alarm or crime on their property. Of course colleges need police departments to keep them safe. Its a part of business that any large college is going to need.
But if BU wasn't there, I would assume there would be a few hundred million worth of taxed property that could pay for some of these services.
I also dont think Fire Engines or EMTs actually costs anything each time they respond somewhere. They could charge the college Im sure, but they are being paid regardless.
I have heard that BC has to
I have heard that BC has to pay something like $400 every time a fire alarm goes off, be it accidental or not.
One of the interesting
One of the interesting things that I learned in following the City's PILOT Task Force is how little of the land in the City is owned by the schools and hospitals. According to the Boston Municipal Research Bureau while 51% of the land in the City is tax exempt, the hospitals and educational institutions only make up 5% of the land in the City. The majority of it is owned by the State or the City itself.
I realize that doesn't address 1) city services or 2) the value of the land owned by the hospitals and educational institutions, but I always assumed the percentage of land was much higher.