[HN Gopher] Columbia and NYU Would Lose $327M in Tax Breaks Unde...
___________________________________________________________________
Columbia and NYU Would Lose $327M in Tax Breaks Under Proposal
Author : haltingproblem
Score : 28 points
Date : 2023-12-10 18:58 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nytimes.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nytimes.com)
| ChrisBland wrote:
| At some point we do need to look at the hedge funds that have a
| school attached as well. The endowments at some of these
| universities is astounding.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| I can only guess that you're downvoted by all the Princeton and
| Yale readers here
| crazygringo wrote:
| No -- these _two targeted_ institutions shouldn 't be taxed when
| other colleges and universities in the city _continue to be
| exempt_. That 's not fair --
|
| -- BUT, I think it's absolutely fair to keep tax breaks _only for
| buildings used primarily for educational /research and related
| activities_ (like dorm rooms and student centers and research
| labs).
|
| Because if Columbia and NYU are _investing_ in real estate as
| part of their endowment, e.g. residential and office buildings
| unconnected to their educational mission, then _those_ should be
| taxed normally. And the same for any other nonprofit -- no reason
| to single them out.
| lvl102 wrote:
| This is very true. NYU and Columbia should not be treated as
| not-for-profit because they're not. And they also take money
| from sovereign and let them influence research and curriculum.
| They do not deliver the value even remotely commensurate with
| tax savings they enjoy. Especially NYU. Only schools of value
| at NYU is medical, law, and film. So roughly 3,000 students.
| They enjoy billions in tax savings and not even remotely close
| to what's returned by those 3,000 students remaining in NYC
| after graduation.
| yowzadave wrote:
| > Only schools of value at NYU is medical, law, and film. So
| roughly 3,000 students.
|
| NYU has 26,000 undergraduate students--is this not of value?
| Seems like a very broad brush with which to paint the largest
| university in New York.
| lvl102 wrote:
| NYU is run like a business and for-profit. Undergraduate is
| mediocre at best for underperforming students.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > BUT, I think it's absolutely fair to keep tax breaks only for
| buildings used primarily for educational/research and related
| activities (like dorm rooms and student centers and research
| labs).
|
| According to
| https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/26/nyregion/columbia-univers...
|
| >> Universities, including Columbia, pay tax on properties they
| own that are not used for educational purposes.
|
| So I don't _think_ they 're able to just become tax-free real-
| estate investors, although I don't know where the dividing line
| is?
| bell-cot wrote:
| Um...reading the article, the proposed change would apply to
| _all_ universities, museums, and other non-profits. (See 4th
| paragraph.) Columbia and NYU are merely a couple click-baity
| names, and currently "earning" the most $$$ by taking
| advantage of the long-running exemption.
| mportela wrote:
| That's not true (paragraph 12):
|
| "The legislation would only apply to Columbia and N.Y.U. and
| not other large private universities that own significant
| land, such as Cornell University in Ithaca. Lawmakers said
| that other universities would be excluded because their tax
| breaks are far lower than those of Columbia's and N.Y.U.'s;
| the annual real estate tax exemption threshold would be $100
| million."
| bell-cot wrote:
| Sure sounds to me like the other institutions are only
| "excluded" because they aren't currently making enough
| money to qualify for the tax. Kinda like I was "excluded"
| from itemizing deductions on my 1040 last year, due to
| insufficient mortgage and medical expenses. But my cousin
| Sam was not excluded. Same tax law applies to both of us.
| mportela wrote:
| Fair enough. We would need to wait and see the actual
| piece of legislation and I assume they wouldn't single
| out these institutions otherwise it would be too easy to
| contest at the state supreme court.
|
| Here's the text to the amendment and, for now, it's just
| about allowing the state government to start taxing
| private institutions of higher education (not museums nor
| other non-profits though): https://www.nyassembly.gov/leg
| /?default_fld=&leg_video=&bn=S...
| GenerWork wrote:
| Archive link: https://archive.is/u50OG
| compiler-guy wrote:
| I think you can make a case for targeting Columbia in particular,
| even to the exclusion of other schools.
|
| Columbia was a major beneficiary of the city's power of eminent
| domain in the early 2000s, killing small business and other local
| flavor in favor of their expansion and planned urban renewal,
| which is kind of slimy already. The big arguments were that it
| couldn't expand and maintain its status without it.
|
| So now time to pay the piper. All those places used to pay
| property taxes, now they don't.
|
| "In a unanimous decision, the Court of Appeals overturned a lower
| court ruling that barred the state from using its power of
| eminent domain to take private property in the 17-acre expansion
| zone west of Broadway without the property owner's consent. The
| ruling held that the courts must give deference to the state's
| determination that the area was "blighted" and that condemnation
| on behalf of a university served a public purpose, two
| requirements under the law.
|
| Lee Bollinger, the president of Columbia University, said he was
| grateful for the state's hard work in the case. "This is an
| extremely important moment in the history of Columbia," he said.
| "It's only fair to say that the opportunity to build a new campus
| comes along very rarely.""
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/25/nyregion/25columbia.html
| meepmorp wrote:
| > I think you can make a case for targeting Columbia in
| particular, even to the exclusion of other schools.
|
| Said case would be a court case because such a law would be a
| bill of attainder, which are explicitly unconstitutional.
| mountain_lion wrote:
| That's not how Bills of Attainder work. They are primarily
| about punishments without findings of guilt. Particularly,
| denial of civil rights without trial. Whatever the merits of
| this case, removing a tax break is not a criminal finding,
| and having an organization paying the same taxes as most
| others is not a denial of civil rights.
|
| "The two main criteria that the courts use to determine
| whether legislation is a bill of attainder are (1) whether
| "specific" individuals, groups, or entities are affected by
| the statute, and (2) whether the legislation inflicts a
| "punishment" on those individuals. The U.S. Supreme Court has
| also identified three types of legislation that would fulfill
| the "punishment" prong of the test: (1) where the burden is
| such as has "traditionally" been found to be punitive
| (historical test); (2) where the type and severity of burdens
| imposed are the "functional equivalent" of punishment because
| they cannot reasonably be said to further "non-punitive
| legislative purposes" (functional test); and (3) where the
| legislative record evinces a "congressional intent to punish
| (motivational test)." ...
|
| "It would appear that the identification of papers and
| recordings under the control of a named person (the former
| President) would meet the per se requirement. The Court in
| Nixon, however, found that the statute was constitutional
| despite this specificity. In Nixon, the Court found that the
| bill failed the second prong (punishment) of the test for a
| bill of attainder, since the act fulfilled the valid
| regulatory purpose of preserving information which was needed
| to prosecute Watergaterelated crimes and was of historical
| interest.31 As part of this analysis, however, the Court even
| questioned whether the statute in question met the
| specificity prong of the two-part test, finding that naming
| an individual could be "fairly and rationally understood" as
| designating a "legitimate class of one."32 Thus, it has been
| suggested that Nixon stands for the proposition that any
| level of specificity is acceptable, even the naming of
| individuals, as long as a rational, non-punitive basis for
| the legislation can be established."
|
| https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40826.pdf
|
| Property taxes are not traditionally punishments. The type
| and severity of the property taxes in this case are entirely
| in line with taxes that most everyone else pays, and the
| purpose here entire furthers non-punitive legislative
| purposes.
|
| Even the single class-member herewould like meet the
| "rational, non-punitive" test.
|
| There are also a mountain of very carefully crafted tax
| breaks and subsidies designed to benefit the one particular
| corporation that qualifies.
|
| I have no idea if the above proposal is a good idea or a bad
| one, but I would be very surprised if it qualified as a Bill
| of Attainder.
| ianbutler wrote:
| Having gone to NYU, the institution is bloated, the quality of
| education could be way better for many disciplines and they could
| charge less tuition to students and still be completely fine.
|
| If you look at their budget every year they have an "other" line
| that's very big and comprises all these types of dealings. It's
| scummy and doesn't fulfill the mission of teaching people, but it
| sure does enrich specific people.
|
| I still remember taking a course under Julian Togelius where we
| had to translate some statement from hex or something that
| amounted to "Columbia is better than NYU". So even the well
| respected research professors agree on the quality of the
| education.
|
| Shout out to the various student run labs and individual
| professors I worked with that made the experience more worthwhile
| and who actually care to foster curious students.
|
| NYU continues to have the audacity to reach out to me for
| handouts though.
| renewiltord wrote:
| This kind of thing is really annoying. Other orgs have been able
| to exploit this to get off the ground. I'm trying to get
| something like Academy of Art in SF (real-estate corp protected
| by 501c3) going and being tax free is a big advantage. I think,
| ultimately, we'll be protected.
|
| Usually you can trot someone out like "tell that to this first-
| gen college student" and shit like that. I think SF is ripe for
| this.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-10 23:01 UTC)