Squeezed Cities Ask Nonprofits for More Money--will they ask WTS?

by blondie 6 Replies latest jw friends

  • blondie
    blondie

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/us/12nonprofits.html

    May 11, 2011

    Squeezed Cities Ask Nonprofits for More Money

    By MICHAEL COOPER

    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.

    Boston has been sending letters to its largest nonprofit institutions this year, telling them the value of their land and asking them to begin making annual payments that would eventually rise to a quarter of what they would owe if they paid property taxes. Mayor-elect Rahm Emanuel of Chicago wants the city to begin charging water fees to nonprofits, which have been spared them in the past. And the mayor of Providence, R.I., Angel Taveras, cited Boston’s example this month when he called on nonprofits to pay more money to the city.

    “Every citizen, every city worker, every taxpayer, every business and every organization — including tax-exempt institutions — must share part of the burden of saving our city,” Mr. Taveras said in his budget address. He proposed closing Providence’s $109 million budget gap by shutting schools, laying off workers, cutting the Police and Fire Department budgets and raising taxes on homeowners as well as seeking larger payments from the city’s prestigious universities and other nonprofit institutions.

    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.

    So as the fiscal crisis lingers, some cities are weighing new fees on nonprofits for things like water service, street drainage and streetlights. Others, including New Orleans, want to tighten the rules establishing how tax-exempt status is granted. And many are seeking new or larger voluntary payments — known as payments in lieu of taxes, or Pilots — from nonprofit institutions.

    But the effort to get nonprofit institutions to contribute more comes as many nonprofits are feeling the same pinch as cities: their endowments shrank as their investments lost money, contributions from donors and governments dried up and demand for their services remained the same or rose. David L. Thompson, the vice president for public policy at the National Council of Nonprofits, said increasing calls for nonprofits to pay more money to governments have left many tax-exempt nonprofit groups feeling demonized.

    “Very simply, the social compact between nonprofits and governments exists to serve the public good,” Mr. Thompson said. “Changing the rules undermines the work of the institutions, takes money out the community and out of the services provided to constituents.”

    The question of the payments has become a new wrinkle in the often-contentious relationship between town and gown.

    Princeton University, for example, pays $1.2 million voluntarily to the Borough of Princeton, and $500,000 to the township. But when the university met resistance from local officials this year to some zoning changes it is seeking to build a new $300 million arts complex — especially to its proposal to move a train station a little farther from downtown — university officials said that they might rethink those voluntary payments.

    “It would be difficult to justify continuing contributions at existing levels to local officials who not only refuse to help the university achieve a key educational objective, but in some cases have sought to prevent the project from going forward,” Robert K. Durkee, the university’s vice president and secretary, said in an e-mail, adding that the university already pays taxes on some properties that could qualify for exemptions, including housing for graduate students.

    Boston is trying to avoid those kinds of negotiations by making its payments more systematic — an approach other cities are watching closely.

    Boston is sometimes known as the Athens of America for its universities, and its hospitals and museums draw visitors from around the world. As the capital of Massachusetts, it is home to many government buildings, from the golden-domed State House atop Beacon Hill to the most obscure agencies. But there is a downside to all that activity, which is so central to the city’s character: it leaves more than half of Boston’s land exempt from property taxes, said Ronald W. Rakow, the city’s commissioner of assessing.

    While Boston has long collected voluntary payments from its nonprofit institutions, it has done so haphazardly, with some universities paying millions of dollars, while their peers paid little or nothing. So Boston’s mayor, Thomas M. Menino, convened a task force that studied the issue for much of last year and decided to try to establish guidelines for the voluntary payments. This year the city is trying to collect voluntary payments from all nonprofits with property worth more than $15 million. The payments will eventually rise to a quarter of what the nonprofits would pay in property taxes if they were taxable, with the provision that they can get credit for up to half of the money they owe by providing quantifiable “community benefits” that directly help city residents. By the time the system is phased in, the city hopes its annual payments from nonprofits will rise to $48 million from $15 million.

    “There are some institutions that have already signed on to the program,” Mr. Rakow said. “Others are taking a wait-and-see approach.”

    A study last year by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, a research institute in Cambridge, found that the voluntary payments had already been made in at least 117 municipalities in at least 18 states. But Daphne A. Kenyon, a visiting fellow at the institute who was an author of the report, said more cities were expressing interest in such payments as the fiscal crisis had continued, views of nonprofits had evolved and the antitax climate had grown more pronounced in many places.

    “I think the most important conclusion is that this should be a collaborative process,” Ms. Kenyon said. “Because if you don’t make it collaborative — if it’s highly contentious, you could end up with no increase in revenue for the municipalities, a lot of legal bills and a lot of ill will.”

  • blondie
    blondie

    http://www.nonprofitquarterly.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12001:providence-ri-mayor-aims-to-tax-nonprofit-property-owners&catid=155:nonprofit-newswire&Itemid=986

    Boston Mayor Thomas Menino’s policy of taxing large tax-exempt property owners is being copied as fast as brother and sister mayors can work the numbers into their municipal budgets. Providence, R.I., Mayor Angel Taveras is looking at potential payments from nine nonprofit hospitals and universities to help fill the city’s looming $110 million budget deficit. Taveras’s plan is to get the nine institutions pay in $24 million to the city budget which the mayor says is 25 percent of what these institutions would pay had their properties been taxable.

    Among the nine nonprofit institutions are well-known higher education institutions such as Brown University, the Rhode Island School of Design, and Providence College. Beyond these nine, the city says that tax exempts own more than 40 percent of real estate in Providence.

    Taveras’s plan would supplant a 2003 payment in lieu of taxes (PILOT) agreement with the four universities negotiated by former mayor David Cicilline, which has generated a total of almost $30 million. But Taveras is aiming for bigger numbers and more payers.

    Therein lies one of the problems with the Menino/Taveras concept of sending all-but-tax-bills to tax-exempt property owners. As the Providence Journal notes, “Taxing all of the city’s tax-exempt property could fill the budget gap, but the mayor is pressuring only the nine.” The Mayor cites Johnson & Wales University and Roger Williams Medical Center as endorsing his plan, but the hospital refused to comment to the newspaper and Johnson & Wales only said it “stands with the other three schools to explore other ways we can assist the city.”

    Others are clearly not in the mayor’s camp, such as Rhode Island Hospital, whose spokesperson says that the institution “has a respectful difference of opinion with the mayor.” Brown University is talking to the mayor’s office, but its spokesperson said, “Writing a blank check, however, is out of the question.”

    Maybe Taveras knows where this is going to lead. While negotiating with his city’s tax-exempts, he has also asked the state’s General Assembly to pass legislation that would give cities the right to charge tax-exempt property owners 25 percent tax bills. Taveras admits being inspired by Menino in Boston, but where the Menino concept is going to lead is hard to predict and potentially disruptive for nonprofit property owners.—Rick Cohen

    Rick Cohen -
  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    It's a tough issue. Clearly, many "nonprofits" make a profit. As someone against organized religion, I would definitely say that religious (and other) nonprofits should at least pay the water bill. I could see them taking too much advantage of the free ride. I mean, if the church opens a daycare and eventually a school on it's grounds, it changed from being a place of worship to a place of education. They charge for that. If they are giving that education away for free, then maybe they should get their water for free. Otherwise, NO.

    Beyond that, I would love to see their tax exemption go away, but it isn't so easy to just say that:

    “Very simply, the social compact between nonprofits and governments exists to serve the public good,” Mr. Thompson said. “Changing the rules undermines the work of the institutions, takes money out the community and out of the services provided to constituents.”

    I can see some public good in charity, but not much in teaching the Bible. I can see no public good in what JW's do, but I have been enlightened. I suppose WT has to get the same breaks that the Catholics or the Lutherans get. So in time, I hope they set up reviews on how much charity an organization has to be involved with to get a tax exemption.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Oh, and this seems like a divide-and-conquer strategy. I hate those.

    They are going after the pensions of police, firefighters, teachers, and the like because the states didn't properly fund their share through the years as they would have been forced to if the workers were in the Social Security system. By "divide-and-conquer" they suggest that people without pension plans would have to pay more taxes if they don't take away from those with pension plans.

    Same now with nonprofits. Like me, many see the nonprofits as "profits." I don't have tax exemption, so it's easy to win me over and say "Tax them, tax the hell out of them." Of course, I really don't want to tax the people who feed the poor or take the stray dogs off the street or help children. But if I don't watch it, that's who they will be taxing. It's so complicated.

  • DesirousOfChange
    DesirousOfChange

    Simple solution.

    Change "tax exempt" status to "tax reduced" status and apply the 25% rule (or more).

    Or, remove the "tax exempt" status from institutions that compete with the "for profit" arena, such as hospitals, elderly care, and universities.

    Remove the "tax exempt" staus from the churches on all property except the actual sanctuary and a modest parsonage.

  • JeffT
    JeffT

    Tough call, as noted above, there is a lot of abuse of non-profit status. On the other hand, I have to think that the $300 million arts complex Princeton wants to build would be good for the whole community. If the community wants the tax $$ they can foot the construction cost as well. There a lot of other examples.

    So, I guess work some better definitions of "non-profit." I personally think that only the money that actually goes to some useful cause should be tax exempt. If I'm supposed to be housing the homeless, but 90% of the money goes to "administrative overhead" - my salary, then I get a 10% break on the taxes.

    If asked to contribute the WTBS would tell the publishers they have to go sell more magazines

  • RagingBull
    RagingBull

    If they looked at the WTBTS closely and weighed the pros and cons of their mere existance, I hope they would move to drain every dime until it is impossible for the company to continue. all of the land and buildings they own, the govt is missing out on major money. It can't go on for much longer. Most families struggling these days should be considered "non-profit", the WTBTS is all about a buck.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit