3 ms·

> 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 st

> 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-university-property-tax-nyc.html 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?

crazygringo 3y ago
Thanks for that link/explanation. So then I'm even more confused -- it doesn't seem like Columbia/NYU are taking up all that much land then? It's just that their college campuses are in Manhattan which has some of the most expensive real estate in the country. But the whole point of tax exemptions is to be able to place things like universities on land that would otherwise get turned into office buildings and Starbucks. The size of those exemptions in absolute dollar terms doesn't seem relevant at all, as long as the total amount of land being used is reasonable for a university campus, which it seems like it is. I mean what's next -- are we going to start asking about the property taxes that New York Public Library real estate could otherwise generate, especially with its majestic building on 5th Ave?