Stanford University continues to take the low road and do the wrong thing by being a poor citizen of Palo Alto skirting its financial obligations to fund our city’s school district. With one of the world’s largest endowments, it can’t afford to pay its fair share for our children and those of its faculty???

As a parent of PAUSD kids, tell me why I should pay taxes but Stanford faculty parents should not for the same education for their kids? How is that equity?

Would be great if the many PA resident graduates of Stanford would pressure the university to do the right thing, though it’s shameful that that effort is needed.

My 78-year old husband grew up in Stanford leased faculty housing. Beautiful big house. This was back when car mechanics, teachers and grocers could own homes in Palo Alto.

The point being that Stanford leasing faculty housing isn’t tied to post-1970’s land value necessity - it was done way before then and always taxed.

That Stanford feels no duty to pay its fair share in taxes to even our schools that educate its faculty members children, while no doubt using our great schools as a selling point to attract new faculty, is why the words “hypocrisy” and “irony” were invented.

Stanfords ever-expanding greed and sense of entitlement should be strongly resisted, or it should adopt The Robber Barons as it’s mascot.

And just to be clear, Stanford’s deeply hypocritical and disingenuous attempt to hang this on ‘affordable housing for faculty’ is risible. Stanford can surely afford to pay for that housing out of its $B endowment rather than foisting the financial obligation to provide affordable housing for its faculty onto the already tax burdened residents of Palo Alto.

An obviously sham argument by Stanford. Why is it so hard to get Stanford to do the right thing?

Seems when they failed to pull off this stunt at the last failed GUP debacle, the lesson they took away was to dig in and refuse absolutely to pay their fare share.

Absolutely no tax breaks of any kind for Stanford. Perhaps all of us who teach out of our homes should apply for an educational tax break, too. I wonder how that would go over? Not well, I imagine.

Also, learning that the Stanford Golf Course gets a tax break, is very disturbing. It's also dead wrong.

Just say NO to Stanford and let THEM alleviate the "hardship" on THEIR faculty by giving THEM a raise.

Let them start housing THEIR community on THEIR campus rather than buying up houses in town. With Research Park and their huge campus, it's not like they're lacking for room.

Their boundless arrogance and demands show they're NOT good neighbors. They threw all the patients of 100+ doctors and dentists into chaos during the pandemic when they abruptly and unexpectedly terminated their long-term leases because they got a huge donation to expand the Children's Hospital.

And trust them: their huge expansion won't add a single "net new" car trip to our already congested roads. Just another Stanford miracle.

Another example of how cheap, cheap, cheap Stanford is. A great business tactic.

I can understand how some Palo Alto residents might be against this tax measure but we must not lose fact that Stanford University made Palo Alto what is is today and not the other way around.

Leland Stanford put Palo Alto on the map and in the interests of higher education, let's not overlook the vast prestigeous contributions Stanford University has made to Palo Alto as a whole.

Wow. This defines chutzpah.

In the university town I grew up in, the private universities were not so land rich. Their faculties bought modest homes in town (my father-in-law was one of them) and paid their taxes. They were glad to do so. These educators valued education for all. They were welcome members of the school community, bringing their fair share of dollars and volunteer time to the table.

Stanford benefits handsomely from their ground leases. The community delivers high quality education to their tenants, contributing to the value of that land and those leases. Stanford should pay for what they are taking from the community's education system, not refuse to pay their fair share to poorly funded local public schools to further fatten their fancy schmancy private school endowment.

Wealthy Stanford's demonstrated attitude of entitlement and ambitious growth plans are rapidly becoming a liability for communities they touch...and for the education of children associated with the Stanford community and our communities. It makes me heartsick to see this. To nearby communities... Watch and learn. Your neighbor, Stanford, is not a friend.

Stanford has become the fabled rapaciously greedy dragon that protects its hoard, at any cost, even if it means destroying the communities around it. They have become a private, elite, self-serving institution that seems not to care about supporting the educations of the next generation in their own community. Interesting set of values there, Stanford administration. You are looking soul sick.

As I read the article, "Stanford is not making an exemption claim for taxes paid by the faculty members who own the homes located on the leased land." So it is the university itself that wants to save on its own taxes (not individual faculty members) and not pay its fair share. Stanford faculty members have kids in PA schools yet the university wants an exemption. One more reason to resent the university (I say that as a Stanford grad and former staff member.) Bad move on Stanford's part!!!

When are we finally going to close the huge tax break for businesses deliberately created by Prop 13? That would be a boon to Palo Alto. When Prop 13 was passed, approx 50% property taxes were businesses, and 50% were homeowners, if I remember correctly. a few years ago, businesses were about 25%, and homeowners 75%. Why? Most businesses never sell their properties, or very rarely, so most of their tax assessment values can rise by only 2% per year. Business property should be reassessed to market value every 10 years, about the average time that homeowners own their houses. This based on old data, so it's quite possible that retired boomers have increased average time ownership time for homeowners.

What I gleaned from this story is that the County Assessor decided to change the long-time method of calculating taxes on these faculty-restricted houses to jack up the County's tax income. Seems logical that Stanford would seek to counteract that move, and not obviously unfair.

"Leland Stanford put Palo Alto on the map and in the interests of higher education, let's not overlook the vast prestigeous contributions Stanford University has made to Palo Alto as a whole."

Are you at all aware of how furious many local Stanford grads and retiring faculty are at its newish arrogance a and and how many are boycotting reunions and cutting it out of their wills? When one hears totally mainstream respectable grads threatening to paintball Stanford's billboards boasting about how community-minded it is, one has to wonder.

The Robber Baron of old is as strong and greedy as ever.
Didn't they also get an exemption on the new housing on their property on ECR in MP?

AUDACIOUS. The County should continue to say no.

I hope in this faida between Stanford and the county the one who will be paying won’t end up to be the Stanford faculty who bought houses on campus, as it has already happened (with an increase of their property taxes that doesn’t reflect the real market value of houses on campus, and the new County’s idea of a Stanford historical district). The house market on campus is limited to Stanford faculty. The houses cannot be sold to the Palo Alto and surrounding areas billionaires, and there is a much lower capital gain if you sell them. Why individual professors have to pay a property tax that doesn’t reflect the real value of their houses and it’s much higher than the selling price?

This is a case of an organization with a $37.8 billion endowment trying to nickel and dime local schools. Stanford is no longer an organization focused on education or any altruistic purpose, it is solely focused on growing its own wealth and influence, as we have seen over and over again. Stanford should be treated as a FOR PROFIT corporation for tax purposes with no exceptions. If it looks like a corporation, smells like a corporation, acts like a corporation, it should be TAXED like a corporation. Stanford Inc.

@observer Re: Mayfield Agreement/MP res r trapped behind steel, concrete, breathe exhaust fumes & have horrid lease manager, cheap as dirt Stanford. Up hill are the MA, SU nice apts, trimmed, prim, inviting, w open green space. MP looks through 14't cyclone fence to a smelly, Astro turf city soccer field residents are not allowed access. Web Link can help the discussion about (Le)land Stanford's ghastly piggy backing on crying poor job retention, recruitment while using the mentality of corporate welfare so that their property gets a 'free ride' over & above the oppressive housing crisis in BA .

"These guidelines, together with Administrative Guide Policy 3.6.1: Bank Accounts, govern the appropriate maintenance of bank accounts and services for the benefit of Stanford University and its affiliated controlled entities. These guidelines ensure best practices are followed to safeguard the university's assets, minimize risk & prevent potential financial losses. Anyone w financial responsibilities associated w the university should understand these guidelines.

These guidelines apply to any school, department, program, center, lab, institute or other entity in which the university has an interest. This includes subsidiaries in which the university has greater than 50 percent ownership, foreign or domestic, as well as entities using any of the university's tax ID numbers (TIN). Only authorized staff identified by an official delegation of authority flowing down from the Board of Trustees may open, close, grant online or electronic/mobile access or change (maintain) bank accounts. Accordingly, only authorized financial staff of the university may request a bank account. Bank accounts are defined as any account w a financial institution that holds funds of the university." End quote.

Watch how the web article is buried by mystery algorithm/SU PR hack.

Just amazing, really amazing. Where does Stanford get these totally ridiculous ideas? Greed comes to mind.

I don't know that property taxes should assessed just because someone has the means. Would you like that applied to yourself? Stanford's argument doesn't sound unfair or farfetched to me ( I am not in any way a party of Stanford). Their business is education and its income is derived from and for education, none of it benefits but educational endeavors even indirectly sometimes..-They should be treated as an educational endeavor. If you think that's unfair let us scrape Prop 13 altogether.Not all of us partake services offered by the city, but some of us (no children or children in non-pub schools for example)use more categories of services than others and to me that's fair. Most of us recognize that without Stanford's influence not just Palo Alto ,but indeed California would be much poor. I'm even saying the world would be much poor and not just financially. We are not a collection of people with randomly assigned interests but a county looking forward. For that to happen we see that our institutions play a large part in our future and treat them with respect and recognition of their role. Stanford needs a little tax break, perhaps not as much as they want but some.I hope they get it.

Stanford doesn't pay the taxes for campus leaseholders. The individual faculty pay those taxes. Why shouldn't these people pay taxes on the purchase prices of their homes LIKE EVERY OTHER PERSON IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY? Why should they pay taxes on an imaginary home value imagined by the county? Paying taxes on the purchase price of a home seems pretty reasonable. A house that sells on campus for $2,800,000 will generate more than $30,000/year for SCC and Palo Alto. Not sure why everyone is yelling at Stanford about this.

Laurie and others have hit the nail on the head: The tax assessments in question (which are paid by the house owners/lessees not Stanford) are not based on the purchase price but rather on what the assessor thinks they would have been sold for if they were houses that don't have the limitations Stanford imposes regarding to whom the houses can be sold (only eligible Stanford employees), how much they can be sold for (price increases limited by CPI), and the fact that the owners must sell after 50 years. Given these limitations, it is hard to argue that the assessment should be the same as for otherwise comparable Palo Alto houses. I would assume that the prices Stanford sets have been carefully chosen so that whatever savings there are relative to what the house might cost were it not subject to these limitations are chosen so as not to create taxable, imputed income.
Thus, the appreciation cap etc. should suffice to justify the prices without need to invoke what appears to be an ill-founded appeal to claiming tax-exempt status for the land.

This article is not clear and potentially misleading. Are you sure that Stanford is asking for a tax exemption for the University? I thought that the University was arguing on the behalf of people who own houses on campus. The issue here is that when the County assesses the value of houses on campus, they use comparables in Palo Alto and Menlo Park and not on the true value of the house. The true value should be based on potential sale price. Houses on campus have lower sale prices because 1) the homeowner does not own the land, 2) the homeowner leases the land (i.e. pays to use the land), 3) the homeowner can only sell the house to faculty who qualify, and 3) the children of the homeowner cannot inherit the house. Furthermore, faculty who purchase the new houses under discussion must move out when they retire and their spouse cannot inherit the house. These qualifications reduce the sale price. Who would buy a house under these conditions? Faculty who cannot afford to purchase a house off-campus. The County assessment should be based on the true value (i.e. sale price) of the house. I believe that this is the issue that is being discussed with the County and, if so, this article is misleading at best.

I'm astounded by intensity and negativity of these responses. The problem with Palo Alto being driven by the residentialists is that housing prices are so astronomical, at this point only foreign investors seem to be buying houses in Palo Alto.

Stanford, because it has to do this or it can't hold on to good staff and faculty, is subsidizing the housing, however, County of Santa Clara decided that property tax is based on the full assessed value rather than the purchase price. High end salary for faculty at Stanford is, I think, around $200K. Who can, earning that amount, afford $30 to $40K in property taxes every year?! Not me.

I think it is this problem that Stanford is trying to address.

Personally, I'd much, much, much rather have Stanford staff and/or faculty as neighbors than a house owned by an investor.

Stanford just bought up a Sand Hill Road apartment complex, removing its 700 units from Palo Alto's available housing stock because they're limited to the Stanford community that Stanford refuses to house on its own land.

Web Link

If Stanford's having problems paying its staff, maybe it could use its huge endowment to give them raises? Or maybe it could save some money by cancelling its plans to add several MILLION more square feet of offices and drop its appeal of the limits placed on its expansion? And/or maybe it could stop buying up College Terrace and removing those homes from PA's available housing stock which ALSO pushes up prices for everyone else?

Re Sand Hill Road apartments (Oak Creek): they sit on Stanford land. Stanford bought the lease back ahead of schedule to house postdoctoral fellows, who are having a mighty hard time finding decent housing in Palo Alto. The university has recently completed a 2400-bed complex for graduate students.

Re taxes for schools: Stanford homeowners have always paid the full whack of Prop 13 assessed value in property taxes, as Laurie wrote, like every other homeowner in the county. The tax assessor has changed the rules in mid-stream. Imagine buying a million dollar home, but the assessor values it at 2 million, with all the tax implications that implies--that's what has happened and the university has been trying to get things back to the way they were to allow buyers and sellers some certainty.

Re Stanford students in Palo Alto public schools: first, PAUSD serves not only Palo Alto and Stanford, but also parts of Los Altos Hills and Portola Valley, so less implication of carpetbagging please. Long ago a woman on the bike next to me at the gym was complaining about Stanford kids taking up space in "Palo Alto's" schools. I pointed out that Stanford residents pay the same taxes as everyone else, and that Palo Alto was in fact sending its students to schools on land DONATED BY THE UNIVERSITY for BOTH public high schools, one middle school, and two elementary schools (plus one in Menlo Park). Palo Alto has certainly benefitted by not utilizing its own land for these schools.