6 ms·

As someone who lives in the Boston area I think specifically the real estate holdings of these massive, non-profits should be held to scrutiny. Boston is prett

As someone who lives in the Boston area I think specifically the real estate holdings of these massive, non-profits should be held to scrutiny. Boston is pretty constrained in terms of available land - and its large number of expanding universities means that a good portion of it becomes tax-exempt. The city tried to implement a voluntary payment program to invoke the non-profits’ good will - but you can see for yourself that they rarely get what they asked for - Harvard only paid 80%: https://www.wcvb.com/article/complete-list-of-colleges-hospitals-and-museums-payments-to-bostons-pilot-program/45714164 https://www.wcvb.com/article/complete-list-of-colleges-hospi... Harvard now owns 1/3 of the Allston neighborhood in Brighton - which for decades had some of the cheapest housing in Boston. If it’s gentrifying, at least let the city capture some revenue.

lettergram 3y ago
You can't make me think Boston doesn't have enough taxes, what are they spending it on? They have a $16B annual budget - https://budget.digital.mass.gov/govbudget/fy23/tax-expenditure-budget/ https://budget.digital.mass.gov/govbudget/fy23/tax-expenditu... The VAST majority of it comes from personal income tax, sales tax and corporate excise tax. Don't think Harvards $53B endowment is even relevant compared to that budget.
- skywhopper 3y ago
  Yeah, what could it cost to run a city?
  - choilive 3y ago
    [flagged]
- tacticalturtle 3y ago
  Let’s sidestep the legitimate uses of the money for now. These institutions in Boston are centuries old. Boston has a very finite amount of land. Allowing organizations with a lifespan in centuries the ability to buy and hold land without limit at no cost seems like a bad long term economic policy. What is the limiting factor on their growth?
  - biztos 3y ago
    If the goal is to use the land better, making the very very rich pay a tax for using it badly is not a great idea. They will pay the tax, and use the land, and the city will have exactly the same problem as before, but with some more money that disappears into the “general fund.”
    - stale2002 3y ago
      > They will pay the tax, and use the land Wait, that's amazing then. It means that the city can get money from them completely for free with no downside. They can just keep increasing it, they will keep paying, and all fitt budget issues will be solved forever!
      - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
        > and all fitt budget issues will be solved forever! Until, of course, it’s pocketed just like most tax money.
        cosmojg 3y ago
        Whose pocket?
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
        > It means that the city can get money from them completely for free with no downside. Let's apply this argument to the use of a head tax. Everybody pays the same amount unconditionally with no way to avoid it, so it's free money with no downside?
        stale2002 3y ago
        > Let's apply this argument to the use of a head tax. Everybody pays the same amount unconditionally with no way to avoid it, so it's free money with no downside? No there is a downside to that. The downside is one of redistributionary effect of having a flat tax. IE it negatively effects poor people more. Thats a separate and unrelated downside to the other example. This example isn't that though. The hypothetical that the other person gave, was that we could engage in taxing wealthy people and it would have zero deadweight loss (as in, those wealthy people apparently keep using the land exactly the same amount as they were before). This would indeed be a free win, in economics. Usually, the problem in economics of taxing wealthy people is that it puts a disincentive on productive work. This is called deadweight loss. But in this other crazy hypothetical, we can get tax dollars infinitely for free from only wealthy people! Amazing!
cowsandmilk 3y ago
Harvard also has owned 1/6 of Allston since the 1920’s. People act like additional 1/6 they bought 1990-2016 made huge changes to neighborhood housing prices, but Allston was gentrifying regardless. CSX was moving out, which inevitably was going to lead to Houghton shutting down their rail yard. New Balance was growing right on Allston’s doorstep. That’s what brought Boston Landing and 10-15 minute rides downtown, not Harvard. But overall, the biggest driver of gentrification was the campaign by Eva Webster to treat half of Brighton like it is the Back Bay. You can’t replace your windows, much less build new housing, due to https://www.boston.gov/historic-district/aberdeen-architectural-conservation-district https://www.boston.gov/historic-district/aberdeen-architectu... . That’s what caps the growth of housing and drives prices up.
- prepend 3y ago
  I think the issue is that they are removing tax revenue from the city, not that they cause the gentrification.
  - BenFranklin100 3y ago
    Build higher. Have you been to Allston and Brighton? It’s filled with crappy one to three story buildings that are 100 years old.
    - jurynulifcation 3y ago
      Or let people retain the housing they want and tax the encroaching multibillion dollar institutions lmao
      - BenFranklin100 3y ago
        The housing people want is more housing but the city won’t let them build it because of its exclusionary zoning practices. Go lmao about that. There’s plenty of space to go vertical.
        3y ago
epistasis 3y ago
A land value tax would fix this.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  They’re currently exempt from any taxes on the land, so literally anything would be a start.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    Yes, I was hoping that if they started a land value tax, it would be applied to non-profits as well. There's also an argument for LVT applying to government land, just so that the public and decision makers are acutely aware of the rents being extracted from the public, if it's a parking lot or something like that.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > There's also an argument for LVT applying to government land, just so that the public and decision makers are acutely aware of the rents being extracted from the public, if it's a parking lot or something like that. How is that supposed to work, you tax the government and give the money to the public? It's not really going to affect their behavior if they're just paying a tax to themselves.
      - epistasis 3y ago
        It's an accounting measure, to help people evaluate the use of land and whether it makes sense or not. For example, if a public surface parking lot in a downtown area is owned by a city, and brings in $1M in revenue, but is taxed at $3M for its land values it's very clear what the subisidt is and who the beneficiaries are. And perhaps that might motivate the city to make better use of the lot, decide that there would be more public value as a park, or to build offices or housing on it.
        AnthonyMouse 3y ago
BenFranklin100 3y ago
Boston metro has more than enough land. The densest cities -Somerville and Boston proper - have 1/3 the population density of Paris. The problem is local zoning prohibits building denser housing and commercial real estate, and thus artificially limits Boston metro’s tax base. Harvard is not causing gentrification in Allston. Mayor Wu’s restrictive zoning is.
- 7e 3y ago
  Boston has a beautiful mid-town scale. Don't ruin it.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    So expand that further out as you densify the city.
- pquki4 3y ago
  Eh, why comparing it to Paris? How about comparing it to other US cities, because that's what people care about? I don't think anyone saying that sentence think about the situation in other parts of the world.
  - screye 3y ago
    Because Boston doesn't and hasnt functioned like an American city. It's contemporaries are other not-very-american cities in NYC, Philly and DC proper. DC and Philly are cheap, NYC is dense. Boston has space and is expensive. It's an exception. Bostons tiny roads make driving impossible. It has actually history and protection worthy neighborhoods, so it a few towers do well to compensate for buildings that cannot be brought down. It has the infrastructure for amazing public transit (pre covid) and can easily support the extra density. All of Boston's peer cities are European-esque cities in the US or European cities. There is a good reason for that. What America calls European cities, are just called 'cities' elsewhere. Other than US, Canada and Australia....no other place has this wierd American model of car dependent asphalt sprawls.
  - egberts1 3y ago

lettergram 3y ago

You can't make me think Boston doesn't have enough taxes, what are they spending it on? They have a $16B annual budget - https://budget.digital.mass.gov/govbudget/fy23/tax-expenditure-budget/ https://budget.digital.mass.gov/govbudget/fy23/tax-expenditu... The VAST majority of it comes from personal income tax, sales tax and corporate excise tax. Don't think Harvards $53B endowment is even relevant compared to that budget.

skywhopper 3y ago
Yeah, what could it cost to run a city?
- choilive 3y ago
  [flagged]
tacticalturtle 3y ago
Let’s sidestep the legitimate uses of the money for now. These institutions in Boston are centuries old. Boston has a very finite amount of land. Allowing organizations with a lifespan in centuries the ability to buy and hold land without limit at no cost seems like a bad long term economic policy. What is the limiting factor on their growth?
- biztos 3y ago
  If the goal is to use the land better, making the very very rich pay a tax for using it badly is not a great idea. They will pay the tax, and use the land, and the city will have exactly the same problem as before, but with some more money that disappears into the “general fund.”
  - stale2002 3y ago
    > They will pay the tax, and use the land Wait, that's amazing then. It means that the city can get money from them completely for free with no downside. They can just keep increasing it, they will keep paying, and all fitt budget issues will be solved forever!
    - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
      > and all fitt budget issues will be solved forever! Until, of course, it’s pocketed just like most tax money.
      - cosmojg 3y ago
        Whose pocket?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > It means that the city can get money from them completely for free with no downside. Let's apply this argument to the use of a head tax. Everybody pays the same amount unconditionally with no way to avoid it, so it's free money with no downside?
      - stale2002 3y ago
        > Let's apply this argument to the use of a head tax. Everybody pays the same amount unconditionally with no way to avoid it, so it's free money with no downside? No there is a downside to that. The downside is one of redistributionary effect of having a flat tax. IE it negatively effects poor people more. Thats a separate and unrelated downside to the other example. This example isn't that though. The hypothetical that the other person gave, was that we could engage in taxing wealthy people and it would have zero deadweight loss (as in, those wealthy people apparently keep using the land exactly the same amount as they were before). This would indeed be a free win, in economics. Usually, the problem in economics of taxing wealthy people is that it puts a disincentive on productive work. This is called deadweight loss. But in this other crazy hypothetical, we can get tax dollars infinitely for free from only wealthy people! Amazing!

cowsandmilk 3y ago

Harvard also has owned 1/6 of Allston since the 1920’s. People act like additional 1/6 they bought 1990-2016 made huge changes to neighborhood housing prices, but Allston was gentrifying regardless. CSX was moving out, which inevitably was going to lead to Houghton shutting down their rail yard. New Balance was growing right on Allston’s doorstep. That’s what brought Boston Landing and 10-15 minute rides downtown, not Harvard. But overall, the biggest driver of gentrification was the campaign by Eva Webster to treat half of Brighton like it is the Back Bay. You can’t replace your windows, much less build new housing, due to https://www.boston.gov/historic-district/aberdeen-architectural-conservation-district https://www.boston.gov/historic-district/aberdeen-architectu... . That’s what caps the growth of housing and drives prices up.

prepend 3y ago
I think the issue is that they are removing tax revenue from the city, not that they cause the gentrification.
- BenFranklin100 3y ago
  Build higher. Have you been to Allston and Brighton? It’s filled with crappy one to three story buildings that are 100 years old.
  - jurynulifcation 3y ago
    Or let people retain the housing they want and tax the encroaching multibillion dollar institutions lmao
    - BenFranklin100 3y ago
      The housing people want is more housing but the city won’t let them build it because of its exclusionary zoning practices. Go lmao about that. There’s plenty of space to go vertical.
      - 3y ago

epistasis 3y ago

A land value tax would fix this.

bobthepanda 3y ago
They’re currently exempt from any taxes on the land, so literally anything would be a start.
- epistasis 3y ago
  Yes, I was hoping that if they started a land value tax, it would be applied to non-profits as well. There's also an argument for LVT applying to government land, just so that the public and decision makers are acutely aware of the rents being extracted from the public, if it's a parking lot or something like that.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > There's also an argument for LVT applying to government land, just so that the public and decision makers are acutely aware of the rents being extracted from the public, if it's a parking lot or something like that. How is that supposed to work, you tax the government and give the money to the public? It's not really going to affect their behavior if they're just paying a tax to themselves.
    - epistasis 3y ago
      It's an accounting measure, to help people evaluate the use of land and whether it makes sense or not. For example, if a public surface parking lot in a downtown area is owned by a city, and brings in $1M in revenue, but is taxed at $3M for its land values it's very clear what the subisidt is and who the beneficiaries are. And perhaps that might motivate the city to make better use of the lot, decide that there would be more public value as a park, or to build offices or housing on it.
      - AnthonyMouse 3y ago

BenFranklin100 3y ago

Boston metro has more than enough land. The densest cities -Somerville and Boston proper - have 1/3 the population density of Paris. The problem is local zoning prohibits building denser housing and commercial real estate, and thus artificially limits Boston metro’s tax base. Harvard is not causing gentrification in Allston. Mayor Wu’s restrictive zoning is.

7e 3y ago
Boston has a beautiful mid-town scale. Don't ruin it.
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  So expand that further out as you densify the city.
pquki4 3y ago
Eh, why comparing it to Paris? How about comparing it to other US cities, because that's what people care about? I don't think anyone saying that sentence think about the situation in other parts of the world.
- screye 3y ago
  Because Boston doesn't and hasnt functioned like an American city. It's contemporaries are other not-very-american cities in NYC, Philly and DC proper. DC and Philly are cheap, NYC is dense. Boston has space and is expensive. It's an exception. Bostons tiny roads make driving impossible. It has actually history and protection worthy neighborhoods, so it a few towers do well to compensate for buildings that cannot be brought down. It has the infrastructure for amazing public transit (pre covid) and can easily support the extra density. All of Boston's peer cities are European-esque cities in the US or European cities. There is a good reason for that. What America calls European cities, are just called 'cities' elsewhere. Other than US, Canada and Australia....no other place has this wierd American model of car dependent asphalt sprawls.
- egberts1 3y ago