Slog
News & ArtsThursday, May 12, 2011
News Cities Looking to Get Freeloading Institutions on Property Tax Rolls
Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:57 AM
NYT:
As recession-racked cities struggle to balance their budgets with everything short of feeling behind sofa cushions for loose change, a growing number are seeking more money—just don’t use the word taxes—from nonprofit institutions that occupy valuable land but by law do not pay property taxes... There is no question that nonprofit universities and hospitals—eds and meds, as they are known to planners—have played a central role in helping cities weather the Great Recession and its aftermath. They provide high-paying jobs, draw visitors and keep downtowns vibrant. But for cities that rely heavily on property taxes, those benefits have a cost. As nonprofits grow in size and importance in many cities, manufacturing has disappeared and development has moved to the suburbs, leaving much of the best land in some cities off the tax rolls.
Why just eds and meds? Why not go after churches too?
2
@1, Well we're going to have to fight that fight some time, why not start now? Every other business has to pay taxes.
3
Fuck yeah tax the churches, I've been complaining about their free ride for years man. All those mofo's are rich pay up!
Would the churches care a little more that their money funds global terrorism? Maybe they'd put a little more effort into making this country a better place if they paid their fair share.
Would the churches care a little more that their money funds global terrorism? Maybe they'd put a little more effort into making this country a better place if they paid their fair share.
4
@1 the republican party is already the religious party, they've just adopted a "money came from god" strategy that heartless anti-social business types seem to love so much.
5
I think ongoing property taxes (for eds, meds and other nonprofits) would be a bad idea, but they should pay taxes when buying or selling land. If you can afford a $3m new wing for your hospital, you can pay the city a lot of money upfront, since you won't be paying taxes in the meanwhile.
I think churches should have their work evaluated and get tax credits based on socially-helpful work they do in their community. Churches with educational (not evangelistic) after-school programs, food and clothing banks, free or low-cost meals shouldn't pay taxes. Churches that are all about proselytization and provision of services for members only should pay taxes. Churches that do a little of each should have taxes reduced.
I think churches should have their work evaluated and get tax credits based on socially-helpful work they do in their community. Churches with educational (not evangelistic) after-school programs, food and clothing banks, free or low-cost meals shouldn't pay taxes. Churches that are all about proselytization and provision of services for members only should pay taxes. Churches that do a little of each should have taxes reduced.
7
Whether churches get included or not, whether the overall idea is good or bad on its own, remember that it stems from electeds refusing to put their own popularity on the line by asking citizens to tax themselves at a level that would support the services we demand they provide us.
This is what happens when you back away from doing the right thing. Not to say it might not be helpful financially, but it's tough to get excited about.
This is what happens when you back away from doing the right thing. Not to say it might not be helpful financially, but it's tough to get excited about.
8
Churches themselves can’t be taxed without changing the constitution. As all good progressives know, taxation is a way to keep serfs under control and the freedom of religion is still guaranteed. I just wish there was a guarantee of freedom FROM religion.
9
@ 2, maybe we shouldn't have that fight now, so we can get the GOP back out on their asses.
I can think of a dozen more important (and winnable) fights to have than this.
@ 4, no, the Democrats are a religious party too, just not the nutty, hateful religious party.
I can think of a dozen more important (and winnable) fights to have than this.
@ 4, no, the Democrats are a religious party too, just not the nutty, hateful religious party.
10
I don't want to tax churches, because then they'll be justified in shoving their noses into public policy discussions.
11
@5 See, I think that would be ideal. Offer tax breaks to churches that provide a tangible community benefit. It pisses me off that some of these evangelical megachurches get to operate tax free when they're really not doing anything to benefit society at large, not to mention all of the political campaigning that is supposedly prohibited by the tax code, but that they get away with anyway.
13
@10 they do that anyway -- witness the Mormon church activity with respect to proposition 8 in CA. I would REALLY REALLY like to shove all churches under 501c3 regulations (that's optional for them right now, because they automatically get tax exempt status with no restrictions on behavior, and I think that's become a huge mistake over the years -- Lyndon B Johnson had the right idea. When he was senator was when a general move to get churches formally instead of automatically tax exempt (you can google this up).
Then it's a proper quid pro quo -- we stay out of your shit, you stay out of ours. As it is right now, we stay out of their shit and they're happy to stir us up. Gah.
That said, there are other more pressing fights, quite true.
Then it's a proper quid pro quo -- we stay out of your shit, you stay out of ours. As it is right now, we stay out of their shit and they're happy to stir us up. Gah.
That said, there are other more pressing fights, quite true.
14
@2, you really don't understand the concept of "third rail", do you? You don't get into a fight with one; you keel over, dead before you hit the floor.
The sudden budgetary impacts impacts of this are also going to kill most non-profits. You can't just make a million bucks appear out of thin air. Say goodbye to every arts organization in the city, for starters, followed immediately after by every social services org. You think your neighborhood food bank can afford property tax?
On the plus side, thousands of empty storefronts and offices, so rents should go down.
The sudden budgetary impacts impacts of this are also going to kill most non-profits. You can't just make a million bucks appear out of thin air. Say goodbye to every arts organization in the city, for starters, followed immediately after by every social services org. You think your neighborhood food bank can afford property tax?
On the plus side, thousands of empty storefronts and offices, so rents should go down.
17
"Why just eds and meds? Why not go after churches too?"
Because they add so much to that political theater of the absurd which keeps people like Dano Savage so busy and wasting his time.
But, Dano, it sounds like you possibly (and finally) be headed in the right direction.
Obviously the original reason for nonprofit tax exemption is that said nonprofits cannot take part in the overt political process, a clear and illegal conflict of interest (only applicable to those at the low end, of course).
The primary purpose is part of that Great Consolidation, and to further that is the targeting of any and all groups at the low economic end, small business, especially, and any and all that might tip in favor of us lesser mortals.
Take Seattle's Economic Opportunity Insitute, for example. Staffed with a bunch of faux crats, they superficially appear to be supporting the right causes, yet each of those causes hits hardest at small business, and are designed to tip small businesses into penury and insolvency.
On principle, I would never stand against low-earning people, especially as I'm one of them, receiving sick days, but when it's targeted at the smallest buinesses with the smallest revenue structure, and being financed from the pockets of the super-sized businesses with all those fantastic state-awarded tax loopholes, it suddenly becomes rather apparent as to the underlying agenda.
You've got to begin thinking more subtly and more analytically, Dano, then you might just begin grasping the big picture.
Because they add so much to that political theater of the absurd which keeps people like Dano Savage so busy and wasting his time.
But, Dano, it sounds like you possibly (and finally) be headed in the right direction.
Obviously the original reason for nonprofit tax exemption is that said nonprofits cannot take part in the overt political process, a clear and illegal conflict of interest (only applicable to those at the low end, of course).
The primary purpose is part of that Great Consolidation, and to further that is the targeting of any and all groups at the low economic end, small business, especially, and any and all that might tip in favor of us lesser mortals.
Take Seattle's Economic Opportunity Insitute, for example. Staffed with a bunch of faux crats, they superficially appear to be supporting the right causes, yet each of those causes hits hardest at small business, and are designed to tip small businesses into penury and insolvency.
On principle, I would never stand against low-earning people, especially as I'm one of them, receiving sick days, but when it's targeted at the smallest buinesses with the smallest revenue structure, and being financed from the pockets of the super-sized businesses with all those fantastic state-awarded tax loopholes, it suddenly becomes rather apparent as to the underlying agenda.
You've got to begin thinking more subtly and more analytically, Dano, then you might just begin grasping the big picture.
18
And for anyone who has missed by past nuggets of wisdom,
sgt_doom's recommended reading list:
The Rich and Super-Rich, by Ferdinand Lundberg
The Predator State, by James K. Galbraith
Treasure Islands, by Nicholas Shaxson
Trade, Development and Foreign Debt, by Michael Hudson
Wall Street Capitalism: A Theory of the Bondholding Class, by E. Ray Canterbery
The Road Through 2012: Revolution or World War III, by David DeGraw
Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, by David Talbot
Death of the Liberal Class, by Chris Hedges
Dark Age Ahead, by Jane Jacobs
The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood (fiction, but extremely pertinent to our times)
sgt_doom's recommended reading list:
The Rich and Super-Rich, by Ferdinand Lundberg
The Predator State, by James K. Galbraith
Treasure Islands, by Nicholas Shaxson
Trade, Development and Foreign Debt, by Michael Hudson
Wall Street Capitalism: A Theory of the Bondholding Class, by E. Ray Canterbery
The Road Through 2012: Revolution or World War III, by David DeGraw
Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years, by David Talbot
Death of the Liberal Class, by Chris Hedges
Dark Age Ahead, by Jane Jacobs
The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood (fiction, but extremely pertinent to our times)
19
@5 and 11
Who decides what qualifies as 'socially valuable' etc? That's a road you may not want to travel, if you actually believe in separation of church and state.
Who decides what qualifies as 'socially valuable' etc? That's a road you may not want to travel, if you actually believe in separation of church and state.
20
@5: I like it.
@19: Not really an issue - there are already specific requirements for non-prophet non-profits in place. All that would be necessary is enforcing separation of church and state by removing the language that grants special consideration to religious organizations. Most churches would still qualify because of their roles as community gathering places and public-service work, but the for-profit megachurches definitely wouldn't.
@19: Not really an issue - there are already specific requirements for non-prophet non-profits in place. All that would be necessary is enforcing separation of church and state by removing the language that grants special consideration to religious organizations. Most churches would still qualify because of their roles as community gathering places and public-service work, but the for-profit megachurches definitely wouldn't.
21
@20
The reality is that most democrats, and as a percentage more Republicans, call themselves Christian. Neither party is going to take on churches any time soon, little Danny Savage wet dreams about it or not.
Though please, feel free to try far left dems. It would help Republicans in coming elections.
And fyi- This hermetically sealed wall of separation between church and state is a modern invention, not a constitutional requirement. All that the Constitution says is that we won't have an established (state) religion and that we can't use religion as a requirement for elected office.
The reality is that most democrats, and as a percentage more Republicans, call themselves Christian. Neither party is going to take on churches any time soon, little Danny Savage wet dreams about it or not.
Though please, feel free to try far left dems. It would help Republicans in coming elections.
And fyi- This hermetically sealed wall of separation between church and state is a modern invention, not a constitutional requirement. All that the Constitution says is that we won't have an established (state) religion and that we can't use religion as a requirement for elected office.
22
@17 and 18
Whew! Someone's off his meds this morning. I never knew they let inmates of psychiatric institutions use the internet.
Whew! Someone's off his meds this morning. I never knew they let inmates of psychiatric institutions use the internet.
23
@ 21, I believe it's been a matter of constitutional ruling, which effectively makes it constitutional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_…
25
So let me get this straight. The government at all levels is too cowardly to tax sufficiently (and especially to put the burden where it belongs -- on those who can afford it). It therefore cuts services, non-profits pick up the slack, and now the government is coming after non-profits for tax money?
City governments can go fuck themselves.
City governments can go fuck themselves.
26
@24
Accepting that Wikipedia is a useful commentator on legal matters for the sake of argument-
(Hint- it isn't.)
The whole notion of Separation doesn't even enter into the Constitution. It's a phrase Jefferson used in an open letter to the Danbury Baptists after the document was written. In the absence of Constitutional language such externa can be considered, but is not legally directive. In the presence of such language it is entirely meaningless legally.
Reynolds in 1879 only said that valid governmental interests can supercede religious expression. It did not say that they always should do so. Viewed within the panoply of our rights this balance is part of the law. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is perhaps the most common example, where the safety interests of others overwhelm the right to individual expression. But we do it with respect to all of our rights in an ongoing tightrope act of precedent, Constitutional language and changing social and legal understandings.
Everson in 1947 applied the Establishment clause to states. It did not expand the interpretative scope of the language, as the past 4 decades of decisions unconscionably and wholly without Constitutional support, have done.
Hugo Black, who wrote the majority opinion in Everson was the leftist ideological equivalent of right leaning Roberts or Alito. All these men have remarkable legal minds which they've chosen to put in the service of their own beliefs rather than the accurate interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Sotomayor promises to be perhaps the most ideologically motivated and unrestrained by her duty to the Constitution, but time will tell. Nevertheless this bias violates their oaths, and they should all be ashamed.
More...
Accepting that Wikipedia is a useful commentator on legal matters for the sake of argument-
(Hint- it isn't.)
The whole notion of Separation doesn't even enter into the Constitution. It's a phrase Jefferson used in an open letter to the Danbury Baptists after the document was written. In the absence of Constitutional language such externa can be considered, but is not legally directive. In the presence of such language it is entirely meaningless legally.
Reynolds in 1879 only said that valid governmental interests can supercede religious expression. It did not say that they always should do so. Viewed within the panoply of our rights this balance is part of the law. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is perhaps the most common example, where the safety interests of others overwhelm the right to individual expression. But we do it with respect to all of our rights in an ongoing tightrope act of precedent, Constitutional language and changing social and legal understandings.
Everson in 1947 applied the Establishment clause to states. It did not expand the interpretative scope of the language, as the past 4 decades of decisions unconscionably and wholly without Constitutional support, have done.
Hugo Black, who wrote the majority opinion in Everson was the leftist ideological equivalent of right leaning Roberts or Alito. All these men have remarkable legal minds which they've chosen to put in the service of their own beliefs rather than the accurate interpretation of the Constitution. Justice Sotomayor promises to be perhaps the most ideologically motivated and unrestrained by her duty to the Constitution, but time will tell. Nevertheless this bias violates their oaths, and they should all be ashamed.
27
@ 26, that copying and pasting is nice, but it doesn't change the fact of what I said; nor does it make you any more of a valid expert on legal matters than wikipedia.
28
Those were my words, sonny boy. Ah reckon back when I was at collidge I done learnt a few 2 dollar words from them perfesser types. Didn't teach me bout sloppin no hogs, or skinnin no coons or nothin useful like nohow, but they sure did learn me to talk purty.
Nor did I claim to be such an expert. Wikipedia is a good place to find generic information to be tested against real sources. It isn't authoritative on anything though, legal or otherwise.
Nor did I claim to be such an expert. Wikipedia is a good place to find generic information to be tested against real sources. It isn't authoritative on anything though, legal or otherwise.
29
@26: Excuse me, but when it comes to the INTERPRETATION of the law, in order to ascertain its intent, the writings of the law's authors are entirely relevant. Not sure what the Establishment Clause was meant to say? Getting some background information on Jefferson and Madison will help you there.
And if there's some substantive error in the relevant Wikipedia page, feel free to point it out. Otherwise, feel free to bring in the opinion of Conservapedia.
@27: If you're going to accuse someone of copypasting, at least Google their phrasing to see if they actually are, you newfag.
And if there's some substantive error in the relevant Wikipedia page, feel free to point it out. Otherwise, feel free to bring in the opinion of Conservapedia.
@27: If you're going to accuse someone of copypasting, at least Google their phrasing to see if they actually are, you newfag.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
Listen Up, Gays: They're Coming to Recruit You by Cienna Madrid
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (30) RSS