4 ms·

This seems absolutely insane, maybe someone can provide more context. Looks like a leftist government money grab to me. How much tourism revenue does 4.5 milli

This seems absolutely insane, maybe someone can provide more context. Looks like a leftist government money grab to me. How much tourism revenue does 4.5 million visitors annually bring the city of Barcelona? What other famous national landmarks (likely Church-owned) in Spain can be retroactively fined for being constructed without a building permit?

phyller 8y ago
Yea, it does seem like an excuse for the money raised by the church to make it into the local politicians hands. However, this can be a legitimate issue. For example, New Haven, Connecticut, the site of Yale University, has become a notoriously crime-ridden area. It's not a very big place and something like half the property in the city is owned by non-profits (a few universities, a few large hospitals). Therefore the city's tax base is cut in half (US city revenues are largely from property taxes), but it still needs to provide infrastructure, police, public transportation, etc for everyone. But it makes it seem more suspicious doing it like this instead of passing a new law that formalizes payments for services.
- why_only_15 8y ago
  Yale pays $15m in taxes per year apparently, or at least did in 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110907184503/http://www.yale.edu/onhsa/about_YaleNH.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20110907184503/http://www.yale.e...
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    That seems minuscule. The Yale endowment is a hair away from $30 billion dollars. Their budget is $4 billion per year. I don't feel good about tax benefits for organizations that big.
  - phyller 8y ago
    I'm not disparaging Yale at all, just explaining how a lot of untaxable property can affect a city. Yale owns a lot of commercial properties in New Haven, including stores and offices. I'm sure they pay taxes on those. And like a lot of universities they pay for their own police and emergency services which takes a burden off the city. But there is also University of New Haven, Southern Connecticut State University, Albertus Magnus College, and Gateway Community College, as well as Yale-New Haven Hospital and all its satellite buildings and St Raphael. This is all in a town of 130,000 people, a quarter of whom live below the poverty line. Again, not saying any of these are bad institutions, or that the problems in New Haven are their fault, just that it is a tricky situation to deal with. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/31/yale-new-haven-hospital-community-trust-261660 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/31/yale-new-haven-hos...
mikeash 8y ago
Is it really a retroactive fine? It’s still under construction.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  Its been under construction since 1880's. Mighty excuse.
Camillo 8y ago
I've been trying for a few minutes to think of a way the city's position makes sense, but yes, as presented your explanation seems like the only viable one. A 130 year old building, which also happens to be the most famous monument in your city, would be grandfathered in in any other context. It would be extremely interesting to read more about how this played out and why the basilica agreed to pay. Was there a lawsuit?
- jowiar 8y ago
  Construction of the building started 130 years ago, but it's not done yet (and won't be done for the better part of a decade).
  - kpil 8y ago
    I guess this is the core of why there's no permit. Typically a permit stipulates that a building should be finished within a certain time. It can probably be prolonged, but I think the project was in hiatus for a long time. Or a couple of times actually.
    - jowiar 8y ago
      Yeah — there were a few wars, revolutions, and such in Spain in the 20th century.
saudioger 8y ago
what other famous national landmarks avoided getting a building permit for 135 years?
- EugeneOZ 8y ago
  And what issue it raised? Tourism? Yeah, let's calculate the "disadvantage" for the city. It's second time when Ada is taking money by force from the development. First: https://www.auraree.com/real-estate-news/colau-to-force-30-of-new-build-homes-to-be-allocated-to-social-housing/ https://www.auraree.com/real-estate-news/colau-to-force-30-o... (has become a law few weeks ago)
smsm42 8y ago
Definitely, it's not like they just grabbed somebody other's spot and started building, infringing somebody's right. Sagrada Familia is literally the symbol of Barcelona now, one of the most recognizable buildings in the world and enormous tourist magnet. But here come some municipal officials and say - well, nice church you've got here, I see it makes money, so just give some of the money to us because we decided you need a paper from us to build, and also because you have money and we want money. Legal robbery.
- codedokode 8y ago
  So when I will want to build something in Spain, I can skip getting permit too? Or the church is more equal than me?
  - kzrdude 8y ago
    If you started building in 1882 too, then at some point during that time you'd need to update your agreements with the city.
  - smsm42 8y ago
    If you are Gaudi and building Sagrada Familia and started 130 years and several governments and revolutions ago - you're ok with me.
colechristensen 8y ago
If you attract 4.5 million tourists a year and charge admission your "nonprofit" label is a bit of a joke. I don't buy the argument about bringing in other tax revenue by association. "Everybody else" shouldn't be subsidizing infrastructure for the most attractive place in town just because it's the most attractive place... those people are probably working harder and taking more risks, they shouldn't have to foot the bill for the group profiting the most. (see also, sports stadiums)
- geezerjay 8y ago
  > If you attract 4.5 million tourists a year and charge admission your "nonprofit" label is a bit of a joke. If you don't charge for admissions then there is no way to moderate how many people visit the site, and you start to create a lot of problems just to deal with the massive influx of people. > I don't buy the argument about bringing in other tax revenue by association. "Everybody else" shouldn't be subsidizing infrastructure for the most attractive place in town just because it's the most attractive place... If you ever visit the Sagrada Familia you'll notice that the blocks surrounding the cathedral are packed with businesses living off the cathedral's popularity. Even FC Barcelona and Nike have official stores right next to the front entrance. It is rather obvious that the cathedral is a huge profit source for the city and a lot of companies, not counting the typical tourism and HORECA businesses. Insinuating that the Sagrada Familia is leechng off the poor government's goodwill is simply wrong and the exact opposite of the truth.
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    What? You don't need to charge for admission to rate limit. Just give out a fixed number of free tickets. I don't have a problem at all with selling admission tickets, but maybe if you have millions of visitors a little bit of the money you get from them which you use to maintain your own premises and employees can also go to maintain the roads and police and schools just like everybody else. Nonprofits can be great, but there gets to be a level with so much money that the value to society of not taxing seems lost.
    - 8y ago
kilburn 8y ago
The agreement includes urbanistic planning around the temple. One of the major issues is that to complete Gaudi's original design, there should be gardens and accesses that are now occupied by buildings. Since the Sagrada Familia is not officially being built (because it has no permit), the city cannot officially study (if it can / how to) free that space. Now they will be able to make these studies, and will have a proper justification if they end up deciding to expropriate some buildings to make space for these gardens/accesses. That's the real reason why the Sagrada Familia managers agreed to the payment... Edit: Also, the Sagrada Familia is already exempt from paying property (not construction!) taxes because (a) it is owned by the church (religious temples don't pay property taxes in Spain); and (b) it is a good of public interest (that also don't pay taxes, like the Gaudi's designed Casa Batlló for instance). That is, "the leftists" could go after a much larger pie, and we must assume they don't because they somewhat agree with your reasoning.

phyller 8y ago

Yea, it does seem like an excuse for the money raised by the church to make it into the local politicians hands. However, this can be a legitimate issue. For example, New Haven, Connecticut, the site of Yale University, has become a notoriously crime-ridden area. It's not a very big place and something like half the property in the city is owned by non-profits (a few universities, a few large hospitals). Therefore the city's tax base is cut in half (US city revenues are largely from property taxes), but it still needs to provide infrastructure, police, public transportation, etc for everyone. But it makes it seem more suspicious doing it like this instead of passing a new law that formalizes payments for services.

why_only_15 8y ago
Yale pays $15m in taxes per year apparently, or at least did in 2011. https://web.archive.org/web/20110907184503/http://www.yale.edu/onhsa/about_YaleNH.htm https://web.archive.org/web/20110907184503/http://www.yale.e...
- colechristensen 8y ago
  That seems minuscule. The Yale endowment is a hair away from $30 billion dollars. Their budget is $4 billion per year. I don't feel good about tax benefits for organizations that big.
- phyller 8y ago
  I'm not disparaging Yale at all, just explaining how a lot of untaxable property can affect a city. Yale owns a lot of commercial properties in New Haven, including stores and offices. I'm sure they pay taxes on those. And like a lot of universities they pay for their own police and emergency services which takes a burden off the city. But there is also University of New Haven, Southern Connecticut State University, Albertus Magnus College, and Gateway Community College, as well as Yale-New Haven Hospital and all its satellite buildings and St Raphael. This is all in a town of 130,000 people, a quarter of whom live below the poverty line. Again, not saying any of these are bad institutions, or that the problems in New Haven are their fault, just that it is a tricky situation to deal with. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/31/yale-new-haven-hospital-community-trust-261660 https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/31/yale-new-haven-hos...

mikeash 8y ago

Is it really a retroactive fine? It’s still under construction.

conanbatt 8y ago
Its been under construction since 1880's. Mighty excuse.

Camillo 8y ago

I've been trying for a few minutes to think of a way the city's position makes sense, but yes, as presented your explanation seems like the only viable one. A 130 year old building, which also happens to be the most famous monument in your city, would be grandfathered in in any other context. It would be extremely interesting to read more about how this played out and why the basilica agreed to pay. Was there a lawsuit?

jowiar 8y ago
Construction of the building started 130 years ago, but it's not done yet (and won't be done for the better part of a decade).
- kpil 8y ago
  I guess this is the core of why there's no permit. Typically a permit stipulates that a building should be finished within a certain time. It can probably be prolonged, but I think the project was in hiatus for a long time. Or a couple of times actually.
  - jowiar 8y ago
    Yeah — there were a few wars, revolutions, and such in Spain in the 20th century.

saudioger 8y ago

what other famous national landmarks avoided getting a building permit for 135 years?

EugeneOZ 8y ago
And what issue it raised? Tourism? Yeah, let's calculate the "disadvantage" for the city. It's second time when Ada is taking money by force from the development. First: https://www.auraree.com/real-estate-news/colau-to-force-30-of-new-build-homes-to-be-allocated-to-social-housing/ https://www.auraree.com/real-estate-news/colau-to-force-30-o... (has become a law few weeks ago)

smsm42 8y ago

Definitely, it's not like they just grabbed somebody other's spot and started building, infringing somebody's right. Sagrada Familia is literally the symbol of Barcelona now, one of the most recognizable buildings in the world and enormous tourist magnet. But here come some municipal officials and say - well, nice church you've got here, I see it makes money, so just give some of the money to us because we decided you need a paper from us to build, and also because you have money and we want money. Legal robbery.

codedokode 8y ago
So when I will want to build something in Spain, I can skip getting permit too? Or the church is more equal than me?
- kzrdude 8y ago
  If you started building in 1882 too, then at some point during that time you'd need to update your agreements with the city.
- smsm42 8y ago
  If you are Gaudi and building Sagrada Familia and started 130 years and several governments and revolutions ago - you're ok with me.

colechristensen 8y ago

If you attract 4.5 million tourists a year and charge admission your "nonprofit" label is a bit of a joke. I don't buy the argument about bringing in other tax revenue by association. "Everybody else" shouldn't be subsidizing infrastructure for the most attractive place in town just because it's the most attractive place... those people are probably working harder and taking more risks, they shouldn't have to foot the bill for the group profiting the most. (see also, sports stadiums)

geezerjay 8y ago
> If you attract 4.5 million tourists a year and charge admission your "nonprofit" label is a bit of a joke. If you don't charge for admissions then there is no way to moderate how many people visit the site, and you start to create a lot of problems just to deal with the massive influx of people. > I don't buy the argument about bringing in other tax revenue by association. "Everybody else" shouldn't be subsidizing infrastructure for the most attractive place in town just because it's the most attractive place... If you ever visit the Sagrada Familia you'll notice that the blocks surrounding the cathedral are packed with businesses living off the cathedral's popularity. Even FC Barcelona and Nike have official stores right next to the front entrance. It is rather obvious that the cathedral is a huge profit source for the city and a lot of companies, not counting the typical tourism and HORECA businesses. Insinuating that the Sagrada Familia is leechng off the poor government's goodwill is simply wrong and the exact opposite of the truth.
- colechristensen 8y ago
  What? You don't need to charge for admission to rate limit. Just give out a fixed number of free tickets. I don't have a problem at all with selling admission tickets, but maybe if you have millions of visitors a little bit of the money you get from them which you use to maintain your own premises and employees can also go to maintain the roads and police and schools just like everybody else. Nonprofits can be great, but there gets to be a level with so much money that the value to society of not taxing seems lost.
  - 8y ago

kilburn 8y ago

The agreement includes urbanistic planning around the temple. One of the major issues is that to complete Gaudi's original design, there should be gardens and accesses that are now occupied by buildings. Since the Sagrada Familia is not officially being built (because it has no permit), the city cannot officially study (if it can / how to) free that space. Now they will be able to make these studies, and will have a proper justification if they end up deciding to expropriate some buildings to make space for these gardens/accesses. That's the real reason why the Sagrada Familia managers agreed to the payment... Edit: Also, the Sagrada Familia is already exempt from paying property (not construction!) taxes because (a) it is owned by the church (religious temples don't pay property taxes in Spain); and (b) it is a good of public interest (that also don't pay taxes, like the Gaudi's designed Casa Batlló for instance). That is, "the leftists" could go after a much larger pie, and we must assume they don't because they somewhat agree with your reasoning.