3 ms·

I had never before felt bounded by social class, by economics, by mother fucking money. I remember when it hit home: I was taking a graduate seminar on Afghan

I had never before felt bounded by social class, by economics, by mother fucking money. I remember when it hit home: I was taking a graduate seminar on Afghan Politics. After class one day, I struck up conversation with a girl sitting next to me. She asked about my background. “I used to fight forest fires,” I explained, thinking I was so cool. Her forehead crinkled. She stopped for a second, then responded: “Oh. I didn’t know they let people like that, you know, in here.” Wonderful. And Columbia has a $6 billion endowment[1] on which they pay absolutely NO TAX. They also recently used eminent domain to seize a portion of Harlem.[2] Columbia, Harvard, and every other elitist, non-profit-for-tax-purposes-only private university should have its tax exempt status revoked. 1) http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/new-york-ny/columbia-university-2707 http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/... 2) http://news.google.com/news/search?q=columbia+eminent+domain http://news.google.com/news/search?q=columbia+eminent+domain

siculars 16y ago
I actually work for Columbia and my brother graduated from their engineering school, SEAS. Now I think it's called Fu, no joke. Yes Columbia is elitist, like the other Ivys, but they do let a number of poor people in (like my brother) and give them just enough money to make it affordable with loans. Could they do better, ya I think so. But eh, what are you gonna do about it? In reality, if you are willing to become indebted to student loans and have decent grades/test scores you can get into a number of elitist institutions of higher education that will give you some sort of hardship discount. In regards to your second point, I also happen to live just a few blocks from where that whole eminent domain thing took place. Believe me, it's quite blighted but has been on the up and up in the last 5 years or so. The handful of people who held out were operating storage facilities, gas stations and mechanics shops. One of the property owners is himself a developer developing property in Westchester. Every single one of them were offered a considerable amount of money to relocate. I've seen the plans, I've been to the meetings. Columbia will bring a ton of jobs and money to the neighborhood many, many times more than the current state of affairs. Not only that but I believe they will also be opening a grade school of some sort open to children from the area. Oh, the campus will also be focused on science and technology. You know, things that have a better ROI for society than storage bins.
- anamax 16y ago
  > One of the property owners is himself a developer developing property in Westchester. So? (Even if his projects also involve eminent domain that wouldn't make Columbia's actions acceptable.) I realize that you'd like an argument, but this really is indefensible. > Every single one of them were offered a considerable amount of money to relocate. And yet, they refused. So Columbia is resorting to thuggery. > Columbia will bring a ton of jobs and money to the neighborhood many, many times more than the current state of affairs. In other words, Columbia could pay more. > Oh, the campus will also be focused on science and technology. You know, things that have a better ROI for society than storage bins. There are lots of places where they could build. And no, Columbia's convenience really doesn't matter. There's always a good excuse to hose someone.
  - siculars 16y ago
    >I realize that you'd like an argument, but this really is indefensible. Dude, relax. I don't want to argue with anyone. I'm just telling HN the way I see it. Besides, there is very little that is "indefensible" nowadays.
  - cynicalkane 16y ago
    I don't know the specifics of the case in question, but in general it should be considered legal and ethical to repurpose blighted property, whereas you seem to think it isn't. Well, it's been a fact of American law for a long, long time. If an owner allows valuable property to fall into blight, he is not fulfilling his very minimal civic duties as a property owner.
    - anamax 16y ago
      > I don't know the specifics of the case in question, but in general it should be considered legal and ethical to repurpose blighted property, whereas you seem to think it isn't. You're assuming that blight means "poor condition" or somesuch. The problem is that the operating definition is "property owned by the politically weak that is desired by the politically strong". That's how blight condemnations actually work. Note that the person trying to defend Columbia says that the property was in poor shape but the current owners have fixed that. His argument is that they're engaged in the "wrong" sorts of biz, not that it's actually in disrepair. Their reward for fixing actual blight is to have their property taken away.... > Well, it's been a fact of American law for a long, long time. Since when does that make it good?
abcxyz 16y ago
Why did you choose those particular quotes? Are you saying that their tax exmpet status should be revoked because a few of their students are arrogant? While I agree with you that maybe they don't deserve tax exemption attacking the institution based on the behavior of a few students is just spiteful.
hristov 16y ago
Why? Because Columbia girls won't put out? They use their endowment for the public benefit. Even though Columbia is expensive the endowment does substitute education and science to an extent. It is just that the interest on 6 billion dollars is not much for a huge university that happens to be positioned in some of the most expensive real estate in the US. It definitely qualifies for a non-profit status.
- unsignedlong 16y ago
  They do not use their endowment for public benefit, they use it for their own benefit, like other elite, private universities, and get tax exemptions for doing so: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22043995/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22043995/ The scientific research they do is privatized; they hold the patents and license it off to others. And if they can't afford Manhattan, they should have do what everyone else has to when in that situation: move somewhere less expensive. Eminent domain on their behalf is welfare for the rich.

siculars 16y ago

I actually work for Columbia and my brother graduated from their engineering school, SEAS. Now I think it's called Fu, no joke. Yes Columbia is elitist, like the other Ivys, but they do let a number of poor people in (like my brother) and give them just enough money to make it affordable with loans. Could they do better, ya I think so. But eh, what are you gonna do about it? In reality, if you are willing to become indebted to student loans and have decent grades/test scores you can get into a number of elitist institutions of higher education that will give you some sort of hardship discount. In regards to your second point, I also happen to live just a few blocks from where that whole eminent domain thing took place. Believe me, it's quite blighted but has been on the up and up in the last 5 years or so. The handful of people who held out were operating storage facilities, gas stations and mechanics shops. One of the property owners is himself a developer developing property in Westchester. Every single one of them were offered a considerable amount of money to relocate. I've seen the plans, I've been to the meetings. Columbia will bring a ton of jobs and money to the neighborhood many, many times more than the current state of affairs. Not only that but I believe they will also be opening a grade school of some sort open to children from the area. Oh, the campus will also be focused on science and technology. You know, things that have a better ROI for society than storage bins.

anamax 16y ago
> One of the property owners is himself a developer developing property in Westchester. So? (Even if his projects also involve eminent domain that wouldn't make Columbia's actions acceptable.) I realize that you'd like an argument, but this really is indefensible. > Every single one of them were offered a considerable amount of money to relocate. And yet, they refused. So Columbia is resorting to thuggery. > Columbia will bring a ton of jobs and money to the neighborhood many, many times more than the current state of affairs. In other words, Columbia could pay more. > Oh, the campus will also be focused on science and technology. You know, things that have a better ROI for society than storage bins. There are lots of places where they could build. And no, Columbia's convenience really doesn't matter. There's always a good excuse to hose someone.
- siculars 16y ago
  >I realize that you'd like an argument, but this really is indefensible. Dude, relax. I don't want to argue with anyone. I'm just telling HN the way I see it. Besides, there is very little that is "indefensible" nowadays.
- cynicalkane 16y ago
  I don't know the specifics of the case in question, but in general it should be considered legal and ethical to repurpose blighted property, whereas you seem to think it isn't. Well, it's been a fact of American law for a long, long time. If an owner allows valuable property to fall into blight, he is not fulfilling his very minimal civic duties as a property owner.
  - anamax 16y ago
    > I don't know the specifics of the case in question, but in general it should be considered legal and ethical to repurpose blighted property, whereas you seem to think it isn't. You're assuming that blight means "poor condition" or somesuch. The problem is that the operating definition is "property owned by the politically weak that is desired by the politically strong". That's how blight condemnations actually work. Note that the person trying to defend Columbia says that the property was in poor shape but the current owners have fixed that. His argument is that they're engaged in the "wrong" sorts of biz, not that it's actually in disrepair. Their reward for fixing actual blight is to have their property taken away.... > Well, it's been a fact of American law for a long, long time. Since when does that make it good?

abcxyz 16y ago

Why did you choose those particular quotes? Are you saying that their tax exmpet status should be revoked because a few of their students are arrogant? While I agree with you that maybe they don't deserve tax exemption attacking the institution based on the behavior of a few students is just spiteful.

hristov 16y ago

Why? Because Columbia girls won't put out? They use their endowment for the public benefit. Even though Columbia is expensive the endowment does substitute education and science to an extent. It is just that the interest on 6 billion dollars is not much for a huge university that happens to be positioned in some of the most expensive real estate in the US. It definitely qualifies for a non-profit status.

unsignedlong 16y ago
They do not use their endowment for public benefit, they use it for their own benefit, like other elite, private universities, and get tax exemptions for doing so: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22043995/ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22043995/ The scientific research they do is privatized; they hold the patents and license it off to others. And if they can't afford Manhattan, they should have do what everyone else has to when in that situation: move somewhere less expensive. Eminent domain on their behalf is welfare for the rich.