Submitted by sugarandspice85 t3_124dsgv in pittsburgh
Comments
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
iSoReddit t1_jdzr6by wrote
About damn time
Excelius t1_jdzyqwo wrote
The city has tried several times to challenge the non-profit status of UPMC, and they fail in court every time.
dazzleox t1_je0xcvu wrote
When? They've never followed through in 2013 because Peduto pulled the lawsuit after winning election, so we don't know what will happen. But there have been four cases recently of hospitals losing HUP test challenges even for main facilities, never mind the sort of parking lot/empty lot parcels that this administration is starting with
alexp8771 t1_je18m7b wrote
There was a case recently where another PA hospital was challenged and they lost. IIRC it was because the way the law works in PA you have to not be "profit motivated" or something, and of course 99% of the executive's emails are about increasing profit lmao.
Aezon22 t1_je1ekcd wrote
I'm just a simple country chicken, but I don't understand why "non-profit" company leaders can make 7 figures and not pay taxes, but I gotta shell out thousands every year just to have a cheap house. Isn't housing non-profit? Isn't housing "unrealized gains" as they say? BAAAAAAAAAAAWK.
Ooops, for a second there, I thought you was corn.
ktxhopem3276 t1_je5i5by wrote
They pay income tax on executive salaries.
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_jdzx9zc wrote
Lizzo
egJohn t1_je03yc2 wrote
crazy idea but maybe taxing these 'community partners' could help fund gutted social services in the city and bring crime down.
giantcucumbergrower t1_je1ij6m wrote
Whoa whoa whoa, you said social, fund, tax, and service all in the same sentence, are you some kinda commie? /s
ktxhopem3276 t1_je5isno wrote
It’s a back door tax increase on residents that use the hospitals. Since all the non profit hospitals will be affected, they will all raise hospital bills to pay the tax.
egJohn t1_je5mtu8 wrote
ok. maybe it's time to consider addressing arbitrary and hopelessly complex medical bills
ktxhopem3276 t1_je5pw18 wrote
Obviously but that’s not the topic of the news article. Most change needs to happen at the federal level to simplify billing.
mr_finley_ t1_je00euk wrote
They can afford to pay their fair share and they should.
billfriedman9987 t1_je00if6 wrote
UPMC’s status as a non profit needs to be revoked while we are at it
Sybertron t1_je091xw wrote
Not just UPMC but Pitt and CMU as well. I'm too lazy to do it but I bet if you highlight all the properties they own or at least have major stake in across the city you look at like 1/4 of the city is taken up by them.
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_je1bhyw wrote
Non profit status isn't a binary. The institution can be a non profit but have divisions or properties that are not ..and those can be taxed. UPMC has a number of for profit divisions including the health plan.
CantImagineBeingYou t1_je1rz0a wrote
Same for Highmark/AHN.
ktxhopem3276 t1_je0ojgw wrote
I wonder if the amount of property tax the city could collect from the non profits is worth it if it means transforming health care and education to for profit enterprises. I’d rather not have my healthcare and tuition to go to Wall Street investors. Since most cities have a lot of universities and non profit hospitals, why does this seem to be such a problem for Pittsburgh specifically?
RunningOnPunkTime t1_je4wivf wrote
They already operate as if they were for-profit.
ktxhopem3276 t1_je4wst6 wrote
They don’t generate profit for investors on Wall Street. They are greedy self serving entities, but siphoning money for investors would be a whole new level of exploitation
RunningOnPunkTime t1_je4xxry wrote
You don't need to be owned by Wall Street investors to be "for-profit". They're already siphoning money (profits) for executives.
ktxhopem3276 t1_je4ybcw wrote
For profit companies run 10%-20% profit margins. Upmc pays 1% to executives. It’s not a even a close comparison. Striping their non profit status won’t make them pay executives any less. They will probably pay them more and our hospitals bills will go up. I don’t get the point of that.
RunningOnPunkTime t1_je4zp7d wrote
Are we just going to ignore their monopolizing tendencies?
ktxhopem3276 t1_je50gfv wrote
I think the nonprofit debate is a distraction from the monopolization issue. They should be forced to divest at least two hospitals in the county.
dazzleox t1_je5cma5 wrote
They're not different issues because congress has granted anti trust exemptions to non profit hospital systems, and seems unlikely to change that.
ktxhopem3276 t1_je5dc46 wrote
Could you share a source on that issue? I’m not finding much.
https://lowninstitute.org/why-antitrust-laws-arent-stopping-some-hospital-mergers/
This says the states can take antitrust action against hospitals
dazzleox t1_je5fe3e wrote
The Vanderbilt piece is from 1999 when, say it says, circuit courts were divided on the non profit factor. The way the case law has since settled is the FTC retains jurisdiction to review mergers regardless of status, it is prohibited to enforce anti trust laws against non profit health care entities generally. UPMC's growth lately has not been mergers but building new facilities.
FTC Chairman Joseph Simons said his team would like to do more to address Grassley's concerns but that they are butting up against statutory limitations.
"We're very interested in looking at unilateral conduct by hospitals, that are problematic under the antitrust laws," Simons said. "But, generally when we do that, we find that they're nonprofits, and we don't have jurisdiction over them."
"That's another reason why we've been asking the Congress to eliminate our exemption for nonprofits," Simons said.
"Gosh, I never gave that any thought," Grassley replied. "We ought to consider that."
I'm generalizing a bit. The DOJ retains jurisdiction over non profit hospitals but a more narrow set of issues, but has gone after some for wage collusion.
ktxhopem3276 t1_je5g1xw wrote
> Unlike the FTC, the DOJ does have authority over nonprofits, said Makan Delrahim, assistant attorney general for the DOJ's antitrust division.
Also, what is stoping the state from regulating UPMC?
dazzleox t1_je5my93 wrote
DOJ has jurisdiction over a fairly narrow set of issues though, like bribery/FCPA and criminal matters. That's good but it would take the FTC to break up a hospital system or HMO, and that would take an act by congress and/or a better SCOTUS.
The state could pass more regulations regarding hospitals, as long as it's not preempted. But state anti trust law is complicated in that some things would preempted and some would not, but either way, I don't imagine new laws passing a divided state legislature that does very little except at budget time. PA anti trust law is generally aimed at gas station price fixing, resale price maintenance, bid rigging for state contracts -- not at big stuff that the feds handle like corporate mergers.
ktxhopem3276 t1_je5plt1 wrote
How does the FTC decided what is nonprofit and what isn’t? Wouldn’t it use IRS rules instead of the PA law at issue here?
Material_Cable_8708 t1_je3q837 wrote
I have a lot of gripes with pitt but they are not a for profit institution
Sybertron t1_je6bsi0 wrote
Eh endowment of 5.5 billion. Budget of 2.5 billion they doing well enough to pay taxes.
ahhhhhhhhyeah t1_je08977 wrote
What about AHN?
billfriedman9987 t1_je0dw5n wrote
Them too.
ktxhopem3276 t1_je5j1vv wrote
What do you think it will accomplish? They will raise hospital bills to pay tax so it’s a back door tax on anyone who goes to the hospital
billfriedman9987 t1_je5ojig wrote
Have you seen hospital bills? They are already insanely high and the insurance pays for most of it
ktxhopem3276 t1_je5qrgz wrote
Physicians go through ten years of training and nurses are in high demand so it costs a lot to get personalized service like healthcare. Billing transparency would help a little bit and imposing higher safety standards and avoiding unnecessary procedures could help.
LostEnroute t1_je0aiwv wrote
Here's a better article, which this story deserves.
https://www.publicsource.org/pittsburgh-upmc-tax-exempt-properties-mayor-gainey-challenge/
ce_confessor t1_je06j93 wrote
UPMC is not non-profit across the board. Divisions that work in for-profit sectors, such as the insurance division are designated for-profit. Why this concerns me is that people seem to be suggesting that the hospitals, which are non-profit, should have their status revoked. For-profit hospitals are not something I want to see any more than for-profit prisons or other services that should not be profit driven. If the lines are blurred in places, it should be reviewed and changed if needed, but I don’t like the idea of a blanket revoking of the status particularly where hospitals are concerned.
antlerstopeaks t1_je0dfnn wrote
The fact that an insurance company can own the hospital they are charging for their services is completely insane. They should be completely separate entities and in no way working together.
They essentially get to decide what they charge themselves with made up numbers to screw people over.
Ellis4Life t1_je0fyom wrote
This was essentially Highmark’s stance when UPMC decided to get into the insurance game. Once they failed to prevent that though, they said two can play at that and founded AHN to get into the hospital game. This model has been such a detriment to the city in regards to affordability and access to care.
ce_confessor t1_je0h5vk wrote
There are tons of problems. And my comment isn’t meant to be pro-UPMC. I’m commenting on my hesitation to support for-profit schools and hospitals. In general, their business models have always seemed a bit evil.
ktxhopem3276 t1_je0ozao wrote
I think the issue is UPMC should be broken up into smaller pieces like separating insurance and hospitals and spinning off a few hospitals so they don’t own half the hospitals in the county. The non profit status is a deflection from the real issue of market concentration.
AyeAyeCaptain t1_je0im8h wrote
UPMC insurance coverage/payout is horrible. The company loses money on the non-profit side because the for-profit side nickels and dimes them.
ahhhhhhhhyeah t1_je08pob wrote
People here will bite off their nose to spite their face just to stick it to UPMC because UPMC sucks. But all of these decisions would affect AHN and any other health provider.
If people think health care is expensive, wait until hospitals have to shift costs they would lose from other areas.
Gainey isn’t the first to try this and it won’t go the way he plans because it’s a bad idea
LostEnroute t1_je0aus3 wrote
Was it a bad idea for Boston? Even Erie gets more from their faux non-profits than PGH.
dazzleox t1_je0e03o wrote
Good points. Yale does a lot more for New Haven as well. Pottstown hospital is even paying 50% (I think) of a full tax rate as a PILOT as a major benefit to its school district.
ce_confessor t1_je0b4j2 wrote
I don’t know. I’ll have to look into that. I’m not pretending to have the answer.
LostEnroute t1_je0f6ld wrote
I didn't reply to you, so not expecting you to have any answer.
Avocado_Amnesia t1_je0f550 wrote
That's based on the assumption that the money saved on taxes is going to reducing treatment cost, rather than paying out bonuses to executives and building fancy new facilities that don't meet the needs of the people working in them.
I've seen a couple studies over the years that suggest NFP hospitals have costs mostly in-line with those of for profits, but they are losses of absolutely massive tax sources for their cities, leaving local services devoid of huge opportunities they could have otherwise.
And that's not even regarding hospitals that are also the biggest name in insurance in their local areas as well.
ahhhhhhhhyeah t1_je0h0x4 wrote
This won’t stop the building of new facilities that don’t fit what people need, it won’t make a more equitable health care environment at all. It will just make the expense of running hospitals more stringent. What people also miss here is that UPMC operates hospitals that take people without insurance, which operate on huge losses. Tightening their bottom line is going to mean these are some of the first hospitals to close, and others are likely to follow for a system that was not setup for this kind of tax burden.
Having more hospitals isn’t the best thing but for some rural areas it is absolutely necessary.
dazzleox t1_je0fcrq wrote
They claim even physically disconnected parking lots and empty lots for future development that they own are non profit as well. I do not think if these cases go through the HUP test that UPMC will prevail.
MadameTree t1_je00gof wrote
My property taxes are killing me.
Walkedtheredonethat t1_je0fgzc wrote
Where do you live? I’m new here so don’t know which areas pay highest property taxes.
paddle_forth t1_je0k1pw wrote
The local school district taxes is where most of your property taxes come from, but which is the highest is not really an easy answer. Because townships with lower property values tend to have higher tax rates. This is the best website I've found to check property taxes https://anytimeestimate.com/property-tax/pa-allegheny-county-property-tax-calculator/
Walkedtheredonethat t1_je377ox wrote
That sounds like upside down logic to me, but I came from TX (born and raised in PA but never a homeowner in PA). In TX, my 805 sq. ft. house was going to hit $5000 in property taxes this year. That’s why I left, I was tired of having my blood drained.
paddle_forth t1_je59jdf wrote
The other variable is how often the houses are reassessed. PA doesn't have a mandatory reassessment timeline like other states, so some municipalities will reassess as soon as you buy, others do it randomly. It's a really confusing system and that's why you will see posts in this sub pretty often asking questions about property taxes.
Walkedtheredonethat t1_je8969h wrote
Thanks for your wisdom on the subject, I will try to learn more about my new life here. But I will say, it’s a relief to be home!
MadameTree t1_je0gbiv wrote
O'Hara, so it's because I'm in a good school district that I'm paying through the nose. It's a long story, but I'm trying to afford a house that was in my family as a single woman. I can't sell until the end of next year and I'm spending almost 1/3 my take home pay on taxes alone. My Allegheny County taxes were still $1500.
Walkedtheredonethat t1_je37uwv wrote
I just paid my first round of taxes in my new home and mine were a fraction of that. I’m a single woman too so I feel your pain. Best wishes to you!
aesthetichovvell t1_je05bn4 wrote
I went to propel Northside for middle school and for being a title 1 school, I do recall them having quite a bit of amenities
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_je1cggr wrote
So what it seems like for propel is that propel set up a shell non-profit to own the parcel that their northside school is on and then they rent it to Propel school. You can't do this -- Propel itself could own the parcel and not pay taxes on it, but a separate company that owns the property is making rent on it, and that's taxable.
sparrowmint t1_je29cxr wrote
The state's auditor general called them out for this years ago (almost a decade at this point) and then the state/DOE did absolutely nothing about it, so presumably they can do this.
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_je2idgi wrote
Fuck them. Wow. They're taking $$$ from the department of Ed and then also turning around and avoiding property taxes. Assholes.
All while surviving on taxpayer money. That's balls.
That explains the shell company. So they can keep getting a shit ton from DOE to reimburse leases.
sparrowmint t1_je292r7 wrote
Not sure how much they have in terms of amenities these days. Propel enrollment is way down, so their funding would be way down. It's also quite unequal across the board with their schools. Some schools have jackshit, and their teachers make do with the bare minimum (or pay a ton out of pocket for their own stuff).
aesthetichovvell t1_je2akfs wrote
When I was there they had Chromebooks for each student and then they got a tech lab and ipads for everyone after I left
sparrowmint t1_je2mrxd wrote
Yeah, I recall that they specifically had a significant, multi-year grant from Verizon for the ipads and techlab stuff. But it was Northside (and maybe one other school) exclusive.
dirtymetz17 t1_je0arpo wrote
And educating 90% of the criminals.
dfiler t1_je09gzk wrote
Is revoking the tax-exempt status of some properties the same as revoking an entity's non-profit status in its entirety?
I'm sure this will end up in court, nailing down the specifics of that distinction. Either way, this will likely be the most significant thing any mayor of Pittsburgh has done for a very long time. For a city with this many non-taxable entities and properties, this will have a major impact on city finances.
YIMBYYay t1_je0ig6d wrote
Here's a link to a list of the properties being challenged. It's really small potato stuff like the clubhouse at the Village of Shadyside, a parking lot at AGH, and some private property that really shouldn't be off the tax rolls. The only high-profile properties are a parking garage attached to the CMU School of Engineering, and the UPMC-owned Iroquois Building on Forbes.
ktxhopem3276 t1_je0rki1 wrote
It’s a publicity stunt to placate the people that voted out peduto because he refused to pick a fight with upmc and cmu. I do like the idea of going after parking garages though bc it will incentivize public transit
[deleted] t1_je0gjsl wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_je0wztm wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_je1fjjw wrote
[removed]
Yxlar t1_je2f0le wrote
Good.
BeefyHoagie t1_jdzy651 wrote
My wife works at a small nonprofit that gets a lot of funding from UPMC. She’s worried about this.
peenweens t1_je056c3 wrote
So multi-billion dollar health care companies shouldn't pay their fair share of taxes? I'm confused. If your wife's company somehow lost funding from this, blame the greedy C-suite who won't take less in bonuses and instead gut small nonprofits?
ktxhopem3276 t1_je0qcfm wrote
The c suite bonuses are an insignificant fraction of UPMC’s budget and they are taxed as income. Look at for profit hospitals and how much money they give to Wall Street investors. This is a distraction from the real issue of market concentration - UPMC is too big and should be broken up into smaller pieces to improve competition that would drive down health care costs for residents. I don’t think charging upmc property taxes will come out of executive bonuses. It is robbing Peter to pay Paul - it will lower residents property taxes but raise hospital bills. Pushing hospitals and universities to operate as for profit companies is a scary idea. I think the whole state needs to figure out a solution for hospitals and universities to contribute to city services without designating them as for profit.
ahhhhhhhhyeah t1_je08y0x wrote
UPMC pays taxes on their health insurance division. They have two different entities, one that is non-profit hospitals, and the other is a good old fashioned health insurance company that guts you. The latter pays taxes.
BeefyHoagie t1_je05znd wrote
You do sound confused. Didn’t say they shouldn’t be taxed or the system as it’s set up is fair or how it should be.
littlerossybaby t1_je0fsd8 wrote
Dang. N i just saw homie rollin some dice n the cut..
AbbeHuet t1_jdzw5s4 wrote
> "It’s roughly $36 million per year."
Minus all the expenses for future lawsuits, of course.
More seriously, the city's current total revenues is about $706m per year (link). So this would only increase the city's revenue by 5% (assuming they succeed in all cases)? Did they end up finding fewer 'fake' tax-exempt properties than they thought? Or was that always the expectation?
dmcd0415 t1_jdzwlci wrote
Is $36 million not enough? How much would make it worth it? Why do we all have to pay our fair share and insanely profitable international corporations don't?
Who would turn down a 5% raise?
LimeMime565 t1_jdzwqgy wrote
Because that's the point of the american economic system.
dmcd0415 t1_jdzx8n5 wrote
Oh, I know. I'm trying to get corporate defender u/abbehuet to come to that realization on his own.
AbbeHuet t1_je00wog wrote
Since I apparently didn't write clearly: my disappointment is that there is so little money coming from all this. Not that we should forgive UPMC &co. And I should add that Gainey was fine leaving $115m on the sideway with OnePGH (link. So yeah, that $36m is a bit underwhelming in my view, especially since Gainey already promised a chunk to the police force.
dmcd0415 t1_je05ntb wrote
Seems like a roundabout way of saying, "what about OnePGH" or "what about not defunding the police," or whataboutism. If you want me to point out he failed in those areas I'll gladly do so, and if you want me to vote for a more progressive candidate I'll gladly do so, but I'll also gladly say "fuck you upmc, pay your shit."
You have also left questions I've asked elsewhere unanswered to spout out this whataboutism
AbbeHuet t1_je08gbq wrote
I don't enjoy interactions with insults, but I'll respond one last time.
If you care about the money, then saying "great, $36m" should instead be: "it sucks, we are still have $79m ($115-$36m) less than what we should to fund important stuff". It's not whataboutism: it's about the scale of the problem, and that small victories don't compensate (in my view) for much bigger screw-ups.
As for your other message (which I missed): I'm not afraid of anything? Why would I be afraid? As I said twice: it's great that they are getting this money (if they ever get it). But I would feel better if (a) they hadn't wasted three times that amount for seemingly no good reason, and (b) I was confident they would use it on something more else than more law enforcement.
In the end, I find this administration disappointing: it neither provides progressive policies (universal income was abandoned on day 1, the PD gets more money than ever, blaming local residents for lack of check on crime) nor more centrist ones (see the thread about downtown). At this stage, I find the weekly "CommUnity" tweets hard to swallow. But given the downvotes I'm receiving, I'm glad to see that others are more optimistic.
With this being said: this is one of these discussions which would be easier around a beer. I wouldn't be surprised if we agreed on more than what our exchange would suggest.
dmcd0415 t1_je0fb96 wrote
It's whataboutism because your entire premise is based on you, for whatever reason, thinking I'm 100% supportive of Gainey and thinking his administration has no fuck ups, which is completely false. I would also love to take money away from police but we all know that's not going to happen so if we can make upmc some it's a win. You're speaking of this negatively because you would feel better if they did something else? Politics is a bus not a cab, man.
AbbeHuet t1_je0h9n7 wrote
I'm genuinely confused: I have no thoughts about your ideas/beliefs. What makes you think I do? I reacted on a public forum about a piece of news, that's it. I even said I'm happy that people seem heartened by this update - and I mean it!
To borrow your metaphor: I'm a bus passenger who is a bit grumpy that we are taking a 30 minute detour but just informed by the driver than he made up 10 minutes via shortcut. I'm not telling the driver to drop me on my front porch.
LostEnroute t1_je06i2x wrote
Was the $115m their contribution for just one year? I think that was multiple years worth.
dazzleox t1_je0ybdr wrote
- It was $115 million in pledges including money the non profits are already spending on charitable giving over 5 years. No new dollars actually hit the streets in seven-ish years of negotiations. UPMC would have done a significant $40 million up front on housing (with a possible preference for their own employees?), but then the combined contribution of every non profit would have been only about $15 million a year for five years, including loans (see below.) There was no commitment beyond the five years.
- None of them money would have been democratically accountable to elected government/the citizens since they would have gone to the One Pittsburgh non profit organization who had an un-elected board of directors. So if Pitt said they wanted their contribution to go to a Mon Valley connector, they could have determined that since it wouldn't have gone through city budgeting/voting.
- The $115 million also would have included low interest loans -- which is hardly a grant -- from PNC, Citizens, and FNB to community development organizations.
If Peduto got the proposal operating in time, maybe he would have been re-elected, but he didn't.
LostEnroute t1_je1o51a wrote
Yeah, that's why OnePGH was garbage. Thank you for outlining.
YIMBYYay t1_je0j2zd wrote
It's $36 million/year in total untaxed property, including parcels owned by the City of Pittsburgh. The tax value of the parcels on this list isn't anywhere close to that amount.
[deleted] t1_je4tw1o wrote
[removed]
ktxhopem3276 t1_je0qqyo wrote
Upmc doesn’t make a profit. The real issue is their large marketshare. They should be broken up into smaller pieces
dazzleox t1_je0z3in wrote
There is a non profit exemption with hospital systems in antitrust law, so it would have to come back to the non profit issue anyway, unless congress would pass a law taking away the anti trust exemption.
ktxhopem3276 t1_je11mlx wrote
Interesting. I’ll have to read up on that. It makes sense in rural areas that can’t support multiple hospitals but I think upmc owns too many hospitals in Allegheny county.
AbbeHuet t1_jdzxuej wrote
$36m is nice, and I'm all for proper enforcement of tax law. But that's an amount comparable to usual fluctuations from year to year in revenues. It doesn't hurt, but this was a big theme during the elections last year and seen as key to Pittsburgh's progressive agenda. Surely they had other aspirations than fighting for what is roughly a rounding error in the annual budget?
dmcd0415 t1_jdzydya wrote
The IRS would be coming at me or you for that rounding error. Why should corporations be held to a lower standard and why are you arguing to keep said standard as low as possible? It just makes no sense at all. What are you afraid of happening? What are the possible downsides for the city taking that $36 million from upmc?
kielBossa t1_jdzx6q2 wrote
Considering the last mayor and county exec completely ignored this issue, I’d wager there’s a major backlog. The deadline to challenge tax assessments with the county is end of March.
ktxhopem3276 t1_je0r6ut wrote
They ignored it because it’s a fools earned to rob Peter to pay Paul. Primary voters were upset at peduto over this and it cost him his job so Gainey is going to do this publicity stunt to placate the voters who would rather cut off their nose to spite their face and think turning our hospitals and universities into for profit enterprises is a net benefit
EllaMinnow t1_je02xu9 wrote
This was just the first pass. I think there's going to be a lot more found.
AbbeHuet t1_je03ffa wrote
Oh, that would make more sense.
[deleted] t1_jdz4m2k wrote
[deleted]
akmalhot t1_jdzhqpo wrote
UPMC shouldn't have not for profit status. Medical systems in PA use this status to drive wild profits, which they just reinvest in growing the business and paying outsized salaries to c suite .. they can't retain 10% of the profit so they buy up buildings, build new treatment centers ... The status probably forces their reinvestment in growth
tesla3by3 t1_jdzt1in wrote
UPMC shouldn't have nonprofit status, agreed.
But there's nothing preventing UPMC from retaining 10% of their profit. In fact, best practice for nonprofits is to have enough can available to meet a drop in income; usually 3-6 months of expenses. At the end of 2021 UPMC had enough cash on hand to cover 148 days of expenses. $10.7 Billion in total cash and investments.
Their stated reason for expansion is "expanding access to healthcare", while at the same time doing things like closing Braddock and expanding in Monroeville.
akmalhot t1_je0baak wrote
the expanding access schtick is used to justify everything and anything.
In dentistry corporate DSO's use it to justify them owning and pulling money out of the entire system and allowing them to outright own offices. To expand access to care - yet all they do is open offices in highly competitive markets and close them in rural areas.
dmcd0415 t1_jdzvvr2 wrote
What cities are the most attractive places to large employers in the United States and what are those cities' quality of life for the people who live in them? Asking because I'm a person not a large employer so that's what I care about.
YIMBYYay t1_je09qpc wrote
Pittsburgh's non-farm job growth was an anemic 1.8% in February 2023. One of the lowest rates in the country. Compared to other similarly sized cities, Nashville 4.5%. Austin 4.8%. Indianapolis 3.3%. Portland 2.9%. Charlotte 3.1%. Raleigh 3.9%. Seattle 3.7%. Jacksonville 5.6%...
Columbus was a surprisingly low .7%, but they also just landed the $20 billion Intel plant, so there's that.
Hilarious, downvoting actual stats from the US BLS. Pittsburgh's job growth rate is basically half the national average, and this sub thinks that's okay.
dshd66 t1_jdzpxkl wrote
Not the free loading ones
pghbdw t1_je00nff wrote
He should but judging by downvotes people don’t care about that either
[deleted] t1_je0hd07 wrote
[removed]
BurghPuppies t1_jdzm8xv wrote
Think that through now….
pghbdw t1_jdzhuyp wrote
Or reducing crime?????
dirtymetz17 t1_je0aot6 wrote
How dare you want to safely walk down a street. Propel is educating 90% of the criminals.
pghbdw t1_je00kvc wrote
Judging by downvotes I guess we want crime
Logical-Hornet6448 t1_jdzvt99 wrote
The leaders do not care about crime.
Aggravating_Foot_528 t1_jdzhxog wrote
Wonder if this is a move to get them to negotiate higher PILOTs as legal settlements.