Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_jdzhxog wrote
Wonder if this is a move to get them to negotiate higher PILOTs as legal settlements.
TSOD t1_jdzoqfz wrote
Has to be. That’s essentially how we got the Pittsburgh Promise from the last push for UPMC to pay more taxes.
dazzleox t1_je0dnrv wrote
Yes almost definitely. It reads to me "hey we're going after your parking facilities and empty lots now, and those are not charitable so we'll win. Settle before we challenge Presby Hospital..."
Considering some successful challenges of hospitals like Pottstown, it'd be wise for the big non profits to settle before they get HUP test cases from a state Supreme Court that labor helped elect.
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_je0g532 wrote
it looks like individual parcels rather than the hospital system itself. I guess they figure they may be more successful that way...
dazzleox t1_je0itpq wrote
It gives a chance to escalate during possible negotiations too imho.
Some really interesting stuff from the list of parcels: one is owned by a fired cop convicted of sexual abuse. I have no clue how it got non profit status. Another is a museum that seems mostly to be a wedding venue and another is a private swimming pool in a development. This is only after auditing the first 10% of properties.
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_je0lqby wrote
is there a list somewhere?
dazzleox t1_je0x1b0 wrote
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_je0yl2a wrote
Thanks. Mr. Property LLC seems legit non profit.
1ll1l1ll1l1l1l1l1ll1 t1_je12wx4 wrote
Those listed as private owner are mostly single family homes or vacant lots. Curious to see how/why they were ever listed as tax exempt.
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_je19vwm wrote
That's amazing. No idea. It sounds like this is just one round of many to come. Good for Gainey for thinking a bit outside of the box. The previous 2 mayors tried to go head to head with UPMC and got nowhere. This will at least start to provide some more tax revenue and begin to move the needle..
AntiStatistYouth t1_je0j15d wrote
This is indeed the strategy, although it remains unclear whether it will work. UPMC has shown itself willing to spend huge sums of money on legal fees to fight taxation, even in excess of the initial tax amount itself. They might decide to fight a long legal battle now over the small stuff, even if they don't expect to win because it will delay and deter future efforts to tax the big stuff. UPMC can drain the cities coffers with legal fees and tie this effort up in court for long enough, they come out ahead.
UPMC has explicitly threatened to bankrupt the city with legal fees if their tax exempt status is revoked entirely. I suspect even trying to tax them at the edges is going to be a fight.
dazzleox t1_je0k0on wrote
They've never had to fight that long in Pittsburgh. Peduto pulled the lawsuit shortly after Ravensthal began it, starting a pointless eight year negotiation over a non PILOT for his "One Pittsburgh" plan that got us no where. But in hospitals they bought that where a PILOT was in place, UPMC has honored it:
https://www.publicsource.org/erie-hospital-pilot-upmc-ahn-pittsburgh-gainey
"In 2020, Erie collected $13.39 per capita in PILOT contributions. Pittsburgh collected $1.07."
AntiStatistYouth t1_je0lmo8 wrote
I'm curious to see how far the Gainey Administration is willing to take the fight and if he's willing to play real hardball. Long-term, the city can't maintain it's infrastructure or services without getting some of the larger "non-profits" to contribute. What that will looks like is the big question. There has to be leverage to get UPMC to agree to a new PILOT. Whether that's revoking the tax-exempt status of certain properties, or getting down in the trenches and revoking/blocking work permits for new hospitals and administrative buildings, UPMC isn't going to do it voluntarily
rhb4n8 t1_je1yhuw wrote
Personally I think diverting all police protection from the hospitals to downtown for a while might help...
AntiStatistYouth t1_je1zpth wrote
Maybe, but large organizations like UPMC, whether they call themselves 'non-profit' or not, are driven by profit. Diverting police away from the hospitals is likely just going to create a public relations nightmare.
The effective way to pressure UPMC is to impact their bottom line. Use the permitting process to prevent their new hospital wing or administrative building from opening for even a couple months and they will lose millions of dollars. And that is money they will lose immediately, before they can effectively retaliate monetarily by forcing the city to pay legal fees fighting in court.
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_je1b3e7 wrote
Most of these aren't UPMC properties
Aezon22 t1_je1e6su wrote
> UPMC has explicitly threatened to bankrupt the city with legal fees if their tax exempt status is revoked entirely.
This statement alone should disqualify them from tax exempt status. "We're going to be spiteful if we are forced to contribute to the city which we profit entirely too much."
I'm so tired of this shit man.
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_je1c9i4 wrote
You're conflating tax emptions for properties vs. institutions. this is going over tax exempt parcels that they're saying shouldn't be. and I looked at the list and there are only 6 upmc parcels on it. It won't be worth their while (upmc) most likely to drag this out in court beacuse I'm also sure that Gainey made sure that the parcels they picked were very egregious examples.
jwormyk t1_je0l3t2 wrote
>PILOTs
What are Pilots?
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_je0lkx3 wrote
payments in lieu of taxes
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments