Curious opinion piece in the Baltimore Sun today, titled: "Tax-exempt Hopkins must help balance city budget", by one Jay Hancock.
The piece is confusing, to say the least. Hancock opines that Hopkins and its non-profit affiliates should pay Baltimore city, seemingly indicating that the city should regard Hopkins as a cash cow, milking it for revenue as much as it can. He takes the examples of the relationships between Cambridge and Harvard/MIT, and New Haven and Yale. But are the economics, demographics, management and administration of Cambridge, MA, and New Haven, CT, comparable to those of Baltimore, MD?
Later Hancock acknowledges Hopkins' immense contribution to the city in form of many thousands of jobs, millions in research grants that faculty at Hopkins bring, and millions in revenue spent on services and products, as well as the provision of top-quality medical education. As Hopkins rep Tracy Reeves indicates, Hopkins' academic & medical services already pay the city $10 million/year (parking & licensing fees, energy and telecom taxes), plus spending millions on security (that arguably is the city's responsibility).
What is it, then? Does Hancock mean to say, “Oh, we know Hopkins is doing a lot, but Hopkins needs to do more”, and that's about it?
As one commentator asks in the comment section, what about taxing the multitudes of churches of various denominations in and around the city? Or the entities providing so-called spiritual services need not concern themselves with the welfare of the city?