Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AntiStatistYouth t1_je0j15d wrote

Reply to comment by dazzleox in Gainey is set to unveil plans to challenge the tax-exempt status of more than a dozen properties in the city, including UPMC and a Propel School on the North Side by sugarandspice85

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.

9

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."

9

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

7

rhb4n8 t1_je1yhuw wrote

Personally I think diverting all police protection from the hospitals to downtown for a while might help...

4

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.

5

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.

5

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.

4