LSU's new locker room

[Townie72]

That's not how it works and that's how you lose donors. That's like me giving $1M to the History department only to find out that someone at Maxwell gave 500K of it to Sociology. I'd be livid and they would never get another check from me.

Sadly, that shell game is exactly the way some major charities work.

They’ll allow you to specify what you want your money used for. But in the “fine print” they say that this won’t affect the share of the total the cause you specify gets. I watched this bit of doublespeak used by the United Way and was always surprised that people didn’t understand what they were being told when they asked if they could specify a particular charity.

They stopped listening when they were told “Yes” and never listened to or didn’t understand the “but” part.

 

[anomander]

I have never ever been for paying players, but these kinds of "upgrades" are making me rethink my position.

Why isn't this money being put towards the school's non revenue sports? I'm sure the softball team has nothing close to "sleeping pods"

Because it’s from private donors who are donating directly to the football team and not the rowing team

 

[anomander]

I'm all for stadium improvements, and capital improvements that the players and fans can both enjoy. And now I'll get out my 3x5 index card I keep handy for moments like this: what a stupid waste of money. I don't want Syracuse to do something ludicrous like this. Arms race be damned.

Hell I would take this in a second and not think twice if someone wants to donate the money

 

[HOFCeluck]

College sports are gross.

 

[nzm136]

I don’t get what she’s worried about. Those players will never have to see the inside of the library.

 

[NJCuse97]

Sadly, that shell game is exactly the way some major charities work.

They’ll allow you to specify what you want your money used for. But in the “fine print” they say that this won’t affect the share of the total the cause you specify gets. I watched this bit of doublespeak used by the United Way and was always surprised that people didn’t understand what they were being told when they asked if they could specify a particular charity.

They stopped listening when they were told “Yes” and never listened to or didn’t understand the “but” part.

I think the way this works, and this may be what you are saying, is that the “charity” predetermines the allocation breakdown and then allows the specific assigned donations to “buy down” that allocation, enabling a general fund to be redistributed to other programs that don’t see the same amount of direct funding assignments or requests. Others are suggesting this could hurt the donor pool because donors believe the “charity” will give $5 and match it $5 thinking $10 gets allocated when in reality that donor’s $5 covered the bill and the other $5 can now go elsewhere. Even in this scenario, that wouldn’t hurt the program the donor is supporting, it just isn’t helping it in the way they may have intended. Also have to consider that if donors are telling the charity where to put the money they are essentially voting on or affecting the distribution of funds by telling the charity what is important to them.

On the non-profit topic you weighed in on, it isn’t often a federal, but the local taxes that are of concern. SU for example gets huge property tax abatements from the city in part as it’s largest employer and in part due to its non-profit status. The perception of a for profit entity can impact these abatements. I know of an Ivy you are familiar with that steered clear of building a commercial research incubator to support teaching staff because they didn’t want to lose their abatement status with the town by looking like a for profit business venture, trying to generate commercial products.

 

[Townie72]

NJCuse97;

On earmarked donations to charities (and maybe even Universities) you are saying better what I was trying to say. I get why the charity does not want anyone "voting on the distribution of funds". But the fundamental deceit is that they allow people to specify particular beneficiaries knowing it doesn't work the way the donor thinks it does.

Having grown up in a university dominated town, I really do get the impact of property tax abatements on local taxes. In my youth that was a hot button issue between the University community and the non-University "townies" as the university grew and sometimes caused properties to be removed from the tax rolls when they took them over.

 

[NJCuse97]

NJCuse97;

On earmarked donations to charities (and maybe even Universities) you are saying better what I was trying to say. I get why the charity does not want anyone "voting on the distribution of funds". But the fundamental deceit is that they allow people to specify particular beneficiaries knowing it doesn't work the way the donor thinks it does.

Having grown up in a university dominated town, I really do get the impact of property tax abatements on local taxes. In my youth that was a hot button issue between the University community and the non-University "townies" as the university grew and sometimes caused properties to be removed from the tax rolls when they took them over.

I believe yours is the town I was referring to (the other birthplace of college football)

 

[Townie72]

I believe yours is the town I was referring to (the other birthplace of college football)

You'll notice the that university never makes any mention of participating in the "first game". It's participation in that rugby-like contest is inconsequential to them. Of course, they actually have some historic football accomplishments like Dick Kazmaier's Heisman Trophy.

In my youth and before, the University pretty much got anything they wanted. They were the dominant employer and unfortunately the Townies kept electing University-connected people to the Town council. Nowadays, I gather, that's all changed as the town has tripled in size from 20K to 60K+ and the University's power has been greatly diluted.

The real estate prices are grossly-inflated and the resultant tax bills are staggering. I have a friend who still lives there in a house that has been assessed for almost $2 million and he pays $30,000 in local taxes. That house in the best DC-suburbs would sell for $80K (I meant to say $800K) and the local taxes would be less than $10K.

 

[Chip]

The real estate prices are grossly-inflated and the resultant tax bills are staggering. I have a friend who still lives there in a house that has been assessed for almost $2 million and he pays $30,000 in local taxes. That house in the best DC-suburbs would sell for $80K and the local taxes would be less than $10K.

You're missing a 0, correct?

If not, please tell me where I can find this suburb.

 

[TexanMark]

You're missing a 0, correct?

If not, please tell me where I can find this suburb.

I know, it looks closer to Oswego County in valuation and tax rate

 

[Chip]

I know, it looks closer to Oswego County in valuation and tax rate

If I can get $80k for my mom's house one day (hopefully not too soon), the tailgate is on me.

 

[NJCuse97]

You're missing a 0, correct?

If not, please tell me where I can find this suburb.

I think it's more a comment on the overvaluation of property in the former Princeton Township. It isn't a comment on a deflated market in DC (which is in pretty good shape now that I don't live there. I am a reverse barometer of any real estate market buying high and selling low).

Townie72 I think the power slipped for the University because they merged the Township and the Borough and the tax/voting base tripled against the University.

They are an inverse of LSU in that as recently as 2 years ago, they were talking about knocking down their stadium and building a smaller one to make room for more academic buildings.

 

[Townie72]

You're missing a 0, correct?

If not, please tell me where I can find this suburb.

Sorry, I meant $800K.

 

[Townie72]

I think it's more a comment on the overvaluation of property in the former Princeton Township. It isn't a comment on a deflated market in DC (which is in pretty good shape now that I don't live there. I am a reverse barometer of any real estate market buying high and selling low).

Townie72 I think the power slipped for the University because they merged the Township and the Borough and the tax/voting base tripled against the University.

They are an inverse of LSU in that as recently as 2 years ago, they were talking about knocking down their stadium and building a smaller one to make room for more academic buildings.

You are right. The population of the Borough has been 15K since the 1930's. The population of the Township in the 1950's was 5K and now it is 45K for a total of 60K in the new "consolidated" Princeton.

Of course lots of the Township people did not work at the University, were new to the area and had their own agenda. Also, I think that a lot of the University expansion since the 1950's was in the Township, not the Borough. The southern boundary of the Borough runs behind the Clubs on Prospect Street and Palmer Stadium, Jadwin Cage, etc., were in the Township.

I think the replacement of Palmer Stadium was driven by 1.) the deterioration of the concrete horseshoe and 2.) "Right-sizing" the football facility. You just don't need a 45,000 seat stadium when your crowds are less than 5,000. It's embarrassing to see all those empty seats. There may now be some academic buildings on that site, I don't think that was the driver of the decision.

I still have friends and a few relatives that live there. They, of course, have owned their homes for decades. But when someone tells me they have recently paid those Princeton prices and are now paying taxes there, It flashes through my head just how much people will sacrifice to say, "We live in Princeton".

Compared to what it once was, it's tremendously over-crowded, ridiculously over-priced and all the stores and shops that gave the town character are now national chain outlets.