Maybe Palo Alto should sue Stanford for all the lost revenue from Stanford constantly removing housing units and apartments from our tax rolls. Stanford's sense of entitlement keeps growing by the day as they raise tuition "because of inflation" while paying for their saturation ad campaign re why Stanford Research Park should be exempt from housing targets.

Mr. Pot, meet Mrs. Kettle.

If I understand it right, this increased valuation didn’t just happen to faculty homes at Stanford, but for all newly assessed residential properties in CA, including Palo Alto. So shouldn’t all be exempt, not just Stanford, if owners feel taxes are too high?

Or better yet - just pay the taxes. Then PAUSD can afford to keep teaching Stanfords kids and ours.

The tax burden for Stanford leaseholders has become a distressing problem in the past ten years. As a Stanford homeowner I applaud the university for this action. The campus is a great place to live, but there are considerable tradeoffs for residents who buy here rather than in surrounding neighborhoods. Stanford homeowners are "leaseholders" rather than "freeholders," meaning we are restricted with what we can do with our properties. We don't own the land, but we "own" the improvements during our lifetimes according to the county, so that we are taxed on our houses and Stanford's land underneath. Most banks won't lend to us because of the leasehold, so we pay higher interest rates for our mortgages. Our children can't take over our lease and must sell within two years of our demise. We are allowed to sell only to a limited pool of buyers. We can't rent the property to anyone who isn't Stanford affiliated and only for two years maximum. We can't develop the land our houses sit on. We accept these restrictions for the privilege of living here, but such issues hold property prices down considerably from comparable Palo Alto properties. However, unlike for all other property holders, the county has decided that Proposition 13 doesn't apply to us, and have reappraised purchases in the last decade at a far higher value than the sales price. Some new homeowners have seen their property appraisal value double from the purchase price. So this isn't about Stanford University complaining about taxes, rather it is the university advocating for their leaseholders who lack certainty about costs going forward after a house purchase. I've lived on campus for 25 years and am not concerned for myself, but rather for younger faculty. They purchase houses in good faith but face wild unpredictability when the county adjusts the tax value based on nearby freehold properties with no restrictions.

But surely you leaseholders don’t expect PAUSD to educate your children for free, do you? And you don’t intend to avoid paying your fair share for city or county services?

That would be totally irresponsible.

How do you and Stanford plan to fulfill your responsibilities toward the wider community you rely on? You don’t live on an island, and you sure don’t get to be freeloaders.

I suggest Stanford change its agreement with new faculty to increase the % Stanford pays which would reduce the % new faculty pays. It’s the responsible thing to do for all.

@GHA, thanks for that explanation. Maybe that explains the poor maintenance of some Stanford=-owned properties that have caused problems for their neighbors and the legal expenses those neighbors have trying to get Standford to finally moved.

I think of problems several friends have had every time I see that saturation ad for Stanford Research Park featuring former Mayor Liz Kniss about how Stanford "gives back" and which has been the topic of a recent Letter to the Editor.

Ironically in 2 cases the homeowners complaining are Stanford grads whose homes abut those owned by Stanford.

Clearly people don't know how home property taxes work with relationship to school funding in CA. This would have no meaningful effect on PAUSD schools. Probably the opposite as young families would have more money to contribute to the PTA and PIE.

@felix:

Let's not be overly dramatic, and try to understand the point of view and concerns that young faculty have. I am a young homeowner in the Stanford faculty housing.

You say: "But surely you leaseholders don’t expect PAUSD to educate your children for free, do you? And you don’t intend to avoid paying your fair share for city or county services?"

No, no one is asking that the property tax become zero. Here is the problem:

If I buy a home for $1 million, that means that my financial resources are proportional to that amount. If the house was in the open market (and not restricted to Stanford faculty), it would cost $2 million and I wouldn't be able to afford it.

The county is currently sending us a property tax bill based on the $2 million amount. This extra amount is putting very serious financial constraints on our family. Please also remember that salaries of Stanford faculty are much, much lower than folks working in tech companies in the area. And some families either do not have a second income, or the second income is much less than the Stanford faculty salary (like in my case).

I would be very very happy to pay the property tax bill which is based on the actual purchase price, which is an honest reflection of my family budget.

Stanford's argument does make sense for the homes on their land but their purchase of many homes in College Terrace and then taking the tax dodge benefit should be stopped.

Just want to correct some misconceptions I've seen in the comments: first, this IS unique to Stanford. Property taxes used to be assessed based on purchase price (as would generally be the case for homes in Palo Alto and other communities, since that should represent a "fair market value"). More recently, the assessor decided to instead base "fair market value" on comps in downtown Palo Alto, where homeowners do not face the same restrictions as Stanford leaseholders. This has meant new Stanford homeowners (and it is the homeowners, not Stanford) are paying taxes based on an assessment that is in some cases more than DOUBLE their purchase price – which can amount to a property tax increase of $20,000-$50,000 + per year. Stanford professors choose to buy on campus for many reasons, but a big one is often that professors simply can't financially compete with tech b/millionaires who have driven Palo Alto property values through the roof.
Second, neither the leaseholders nor Stanford are suggesting that NO taxes are paid on Stanford residences. They are not asking for PAUSD to "educate their kids for free," or to "avoid paying their fair share of city and county services." Leaseholders would simply like tax assessments to take into account the significant restrictions they have compared to a standard home purchase.

Let's try again to make sure everyone understand the issue here.

Stanford faculty (and Stanford) are NOT ASKING TO BE EXCUSED from their fair share of taxes.

Until 3 years ago, Stanford faculty in the faculty neighborhood paid property taxes on the price they paid for their homes, EXACTLY LIKE EVERYONE ELSE IN CALIFORNIA.

3 years ago the County SOMEHOW DECIDED that Stanford faculty should pay taxes not on what they paid for their house, but on A HIGHER VALUE THEY DECIDED the house would have cost "on the open market" (ie, outside of the Stanford faculty community).

This is patently unfair and unlike what any other homeowners in California must bear. Faculty now pay taxes on SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER VALUES THAN THEY PAID FOR THE HOUSE.

Stanford is only trying to mitigate this UNFAIR INCREASE in the property tax burden on its faculty that the County is now assessing.

Land is always assessed at a much higher valuation than the home and improvements. Since Stanford owns the land that's usually worth twice or three times as much it's getting a huge tax break that the rest of us are subsidizing.

Think of Stanford as the landlord for a very chosen few tenants. Much like a mobile home park. The rules are the same. The structure that sits on the land can be purchased or leased by anyone, but they have to abide by the mobile home park rules and state taxation rules and be Stanford Caliber. Per the landlord, no one can improve on the land.

When a tenant dies or abandons the property, the landlord can put a lien on it to take possession of it for sale or rental. Sounds like the same rules at Stanford.

If Stanford is comparable to a trailer park, their tenants do have to pay taxes depending on the situation as detailed in the CA Manufactured Home website Web Link

The owner, aka "Stanford Trailer Park Inc.", is not providing education in their trailers. They are providing housing. It's like being a member of a church. The church is tax exempt. Attending church doesn't convey tax avoidance to the congregation. Neither does living next to the church. And when you go home and pray at night, you may have the blessings of the church and what it represents, but it doesn't make you tax exempt.

If Stanford wants to be tax exempt, they need to stop sending their kids to public schools. If their homes are education facilities, that's where the kids should be getting their education. The fact that the "university retains an interest" in the housing is a subtle way of providing an illegal tax shelter.

But that's no less than I would expect from them, for also allowing a federal fraudster to live in one of their trailers with a security detail protecting him from the outside world. Should THAT property be tax exempt? Web Link That link shows why not.

The Founding Grant's vision is clouded by delusions of grandeur.

I agree the home owners on Stanford Property are paying to much for their property tax. They should be paying the value accessed on the dwelling and Stanford should be paying the amount for the land. Just because Stanford owns the property it shouldn't be tax free because it isn't being used as a classroom for Higher Education. Stanford is wealthier than most countries, it can afford to pay but they choose not to. The lawsuit will be settled "within the Law" but it still might not be what is morally correct.

How much property do they own in the surrounding communities and how do you compensate new homeowners that have to compete with Stanford for housing. They have to pay the higher price as a result of Stanford's deep pockets yet they are on the hook for the tax full check when Stanford isn't. Doesn't seem fair from this angle either.

Stanford University, with their $36.3BILLION endowment that will deliver a $1.7BILLION return on investment this year alone, can't afford to pay its employees enough to pay their taxes?

Forgive me, professor, but I've struggled to afford my mortgage and taxes too, and I paid market value for my house AND the land it sits on. (No employer land subsidy for me.) My father-in-law, a professor at a university in NY, also struggled to pay property taxes all of his adult life. He lived frugally, as my family has. University land that is used for educational purposes should be tax exempt. Your home and the land it sits on is not used for education even though it sits on Stanford-owned land. Its PRIVATE use should not be exempt.

If you get this exemption, you will expect Palo Alto taxpayers to SUBSIDIZE your children's public school education, as well as traffic impacts on our streets because Stanford DEPENDS on Palo Alto for connectivity. You will expect us to subsidize your family's use of PA parks, community services and libraries. You will expect our city to maintain excellent connectivity for Stanford residents through investment in grade separations to the tune of nearly a BILLION dollars which Stanford is finagling not to help fund (even though Stanford employees will be the primary users of train capacity that electrification and grade separations will enable). Stanford used to be a progressive, forward-thinking and valued community partner who worked together with neighbors on shared problem solving. No more.

Nearby communities where Stanford is expanding should pay close attention. They'll screw you, too. That's who SU is now. SCC, their lawyers will want to extend this precedent everywhere SU holds housing. Stop them now unless you want to be used to subsidize their grand hoard.

Professor, this isn't about you. It is about community. I pay my fair share. Ask your rich employer to pay you enough so you can too. (And tighten your belt, as I have.)

Oh, Stanford, cry me a river. Before faculty housing on Stanford campus, the professors lived in Palo Alto on a parcel called Professorville. Many homes are on Stanford land in Palo Alto. Is Stanford going to start charging those people for on living on their land?

I am confused by the article and by the comments. The two do not seem to agree. I would appreciate it if the Weekly could clarify exactly what the homeowners vs Stanford are paying. One commenter says that faculty homes are being reassessed differently than other homes in Palo Alto, i.e., not treated as Prop 13 where annual increases are regulated. If that is true, then it is unfair. One commenter says that Stanford pays property tax on the value of the land underneath the home. I haven't thought that was the case, although the Weekly's article implies that Stanford is paying property taxes. I was ready to jump on Stanford until I realized how confused I am be the poorly written article.

Here's a hypothetical of how it looks from the perspective of a Stanford employee.

Suppose you get hired to work at Stanford. You search for a home for your family. You find what appear to be two very similar homes, one in Palo Alto and one in Stanford. The one in Palo Alto costs $2 million. The one in Stanford costs only $1 million. The difference is justified because if you buy in Stanford, you can only sell it to Stanford faculty; you generally have to sell if you leave Stanford employment; you cannot own it for more than 50 years; and you need Stanford's permission even for basic renovations.

Suppose there's no way you can afford $2 million, so you buy the $1 million home on campus despite these restrictions. When Santa Clara County comes to assess your property taxes, they send you the same tax bill AS THOUGH you bought the $2 million home. So around DOUBLE what property tax on a $1 million property typically is.

For around the past 4 years, this was predictable, so at least buyers could prepare for it and figure out whether they could afford the extra property tax. But there was a time 4 years ago when this was sprung on you as a total surprise - not only on brand new buyers but even on people who had owned their homes for a number of years.

How would you feel if your property taxes DOUBLE without warning? Or if it was suddenly announced that when you sold your home, not only would the property tax the buyer would pay go up to be based on the sale price, but also would go up to a value that might be much higher than that price - and potential buyers now know it?

Under what logic can Santa Clara County levy property tax on this person as though she owned the home free and clear when in fact she only owns a restricted version of it that reduces its value by half?

What if Stanford just leases the house to faculty? The faculty pays the rent, and does not need to worry about property taxes or selling the house to some limited pool of buyers. After all Stanford does run a large number of apartments both on and off campus, providing rental housing for graduate students, postdocs and visiting scholars. Why do something different from single family houses?

My provocative solutions:
1) Stanford buys all the houses on campus paying a Palo Alto price to the faculty owners and leases them back to faculty. This would not be a convenient solution for the County, because IN THAT CASE Stanford would not pay any taxes (the university is extempted to pay property taxes).
2) the county, or the court, order stanford to open the house market to people outside stanford.
How provocative is that?

What an extremely badly confusing article!
And what a distorted view of the facts!
1. I bet that the people who write "I pay may fair share!" do not understand the effect of Prop 13 has on their property taxes and how unless they bought their property very recently they do not pay their fair share. On the property taxes you are heavily subsidized by those who bought recently. You are also heavily subsidized by those who do not have mortgages and that includes those who are not homeowners as well as those who have no mortgages!

Some are saying "educate your children so that they are not a burden to the rest of us" . Two of the PAUSD are in Stanford land and Palo Alto resident children are educated in Campus. What if Stanford would allow only Stanford personnel to attend those schools ( notwithstanding agreements already in place)? And what about the PAUSD reputation and value without the "Stanford children" ?

As far as Stanford faculty being charged as if their housing is has the same unrestricted ownership as the fee simple owners I think that if someone doesn't understand that aspect they lack reasoning acumen. Santa Clara County should recognize that fact. I do hope Stanford argument prevails.

If Stanford wins I wonder if PAUSD and other school districts should contemplate the same "business model" to solve the teacher housing problem.

Say PAUSD maintain a pool of houses and apartments, built on its land such as Cubberley Center. It can then sell to teachers with say, 51/49, ownership split between the teacher buyer and the school district, with the condition that when the buyer no longer works for PAUSD he or she must sell the house to other teachers in PAUSD within two years.

In such way PAUSD can offer houses to teachers at a substantially lower price, maybe a third of market price, while retaining the housing stock exclusively for its teachers. Those teacher buyers get affordable housing, and much lower property tax burdens. PAUSD does not pay any property tax on its portion of the ownership.

Multiple adjacent school districts can even pool the housing stock together.

“the lawsuit could b far-reaching. Williams had previously told this news organization that if the university pursues additional refunds based on the same claims, the county and local jurisdictions could lose nearly $5 million annually, which includes a $2.3 million loss for the Palo Alto Unified School District.”
1) will Palo Alto annex from the Stanford greed?
2) Should Stanford b tax exempt based on a “religious” founding? If not, those attending/teaching on (His — Jesus, Son of Nazarene) land b required, 2 pray or “prey” 2 its institutional faith ? (How does Norte Dame U justify/sanctify it’s faculty/student ratios?)

3) @MyFeelz : 2 (Le) Land Stanford: put wheels on them there builds — 2 get y’all exempt, stat!
4) Family. Living on Stanford owned soil & under shoddy SU lease , can’t get a removable speed bump on the right of way. Tho kidding playground is a p-lot. In fact, Wells Fargo P lot’s 6” X 5’ drain (once, Santa Rita creek)is so clogged w crap it floods w light rain.

My father-in-law was an alumni of Stanford, 1960. He transferred from U of Colorado on a IQ test. He also died a devout atheist, “God never existed!”

Yet he could only stomach 4 yrs w Lockheed Martin, post his Stanford BS. He fed 5 children from a palm of family land holdings, a wife’s devout domestic & economic engineer prowess & inheritance from his southern white roots.

My point. The mass production of elite Stanford graduates emboldens privilege & steels human existence. A campus “church” is what Mr Pot & Ma Kettle call, “hogwash”. Freud coined the term narcissist. Stanford has churned ‘em out like those flattened arcade pennies. Like the song “I am special/so special” .

2 continue my curbside reporting: Stanford has elevated itself 2 the likes of a 20th Cent Supreme Court decision — allowing a paltry lucky few hundred EPA youth 2 grace PAUSD campus’. SU! Please share the wealth/knowledge!

How to quantify , qualify life under antiquated 19th Centpower rule ?

Isn’t it an option for those staffers who can no longer afford living in Stanford housing to move elsewhere in the Bay Area and commute to work like everybody else does?

The El Camino Real and Stanford Avenue houses look so bad. No style. Cookie cutter

Complete BS. There is no mention of the fact that the houses in much of west Menlo Park are also on Stanford land. Homeowners there, who are not faculty, are in the same situation. This church/state characterization of the tax exemptions is a ridiculous fraud.

Stanford’s use of this land is obviously not academic. They hold it and use it as investment property. In effect, they are asking SCC to subsidize Stanford professors so that standard of living will be competitive with other universities. That’s Stanford’s job, not SCC’s.

"n effect, they are asking SCC to subsidize Stanford professors so that standard of living will be competitive with other universities. That’s Stanford’s job, not SCC’s."

Indeed. Their arrogance is as incredible as their lies that they've added "no net new car trips" while growing dramatically. Former Mayor Liz Kniss should be ashamed to be the star in Stanford's new saturation ad canpaign that opposes putting housing in Research Park while sticking Palo Alto with all the Stanford overflow.

But then again, she also denied Palo Alto had traffic problems while championing office growth instead of housing!

PS: How do we get rid of that ad? I'm seeing it 10+ times a day!

It appears the county believes it likely would lose a legal argument about tax exemption for the land and is seeking to soak the leaseholders for some money. Unfortunately it will continue the money grab for as long as the issue crawls through the court system. If it loses, would the county be required to reassess the homes and even reimburse the leaseholders for taxes previously taken? Kind of interesting.

The question is very simple. What is the value of a house whose terms of ownership are severely reduced? If the county wants to have an honest answer it must follow the price paid, not what it would be if that house was sited somewhere else. Imagine that the county will be assessing your property taxes as if your South Palo Alto run of the mill house was located in Crescent Park. The law demands that for effect of levying taxes the price paid for a property reflects what a ready willing buyer would pay, and I, for one certainly wouldn't pay for a restricted ownership the same as a fee simple one. Would any sane person?
If Santa Clara County has a problem with Stanford that's one thing but being unfair smells like unlawfully greedy.
I am with Stanford on this . I have no Stanford affiliation at all. I'm just a fair person.

Quotes from the article with [AMENDMENTS]:

"While the homeowners purchases the residences, the university continues to own the land itself." - [Just like a trailer park]

"Also, the university regulates homeownership by enforcing the criteria for eligibility and requiring homeowners who stop meeting these criteria to sell their leaseholder interests within a specific period of time." - [Just like a trailer park for 55+ community]

"They must use the property as a primary residence and they cannot perform any home improvement projects without [LANDLORD'S] permission." - [Just like a trailer park]

"If they want to sublet a portion of the property, they can only do so if the tenants are [CHOOSE YOUR DEMOGRAPHIC] - [Just like a trailer park] [ONE WITH RESIDENTIAL CONDITIONS]

"Because of these arrangements with the [TENANTS], the [LANDLORD], which is forbidden by its [CHOOSE A CONDITION CREATED EONS AGO], is arguing in its lawsuit that the value of the property is split between "[LANDLORD INTEREST]" and "[TENANT INTEREST]."

"The former, [LANDLORD INTEREST] which pertains to about 75% of the property's assessed value, does not qualify for tax exemptions while the latter [TENANT INTEREST] does, [LANDLORD] contends."

"The suit notes that both the faculty interest [AKA TENANT INTEREST] and the college interest [AKA LANDLORD INTEREST] are presently included in the local property tax assessments for these properties. Stanford is seeking a ruling that would establish that the college interest [AKA LANDLORD INTEREST] portion of the property tax bill should be exempt."

If a mobile home owner fails to pay taxes the county seizes it and sells it at auction.

My question now is what if Stanford's tenant refuses to pay the County tax? The County can't take a lien on the Stanford house and sell it at auction. Which, by the way, is the SAME REASON SBK shouldn't be allowed to hole up in Stanford while awaiting his trial, using Stanford property as bond... More to come!

I think Stanford's request for a refund was flawed, in that they stated they are "owner and operator" in item #1, and citing the house's primary use is "education" and the incidental use is "housing" in item #8. The primary use is HOUSING.

In their attachment to the claim, they cite item C, "The Faculty Lessee must use the Property as their primary residence" They don't say "Their house is the little red school house where everyone comes to their door to take classes".

But it doesn't really matter. Stanford's ground lease with tenants states: "The leases require that the lessee comply with certain conditions. These include but are not limited to the following: payment of all property taxes" etc.

I think this just a "pre-quake" that will forecast a larger earthquake when their tenants get sucked into a sinkhole of debt because they paid way too much for their trailer and they still have to pay rent and taxes. JUST LIKE AT A TRAILER PARK!!!

Are they eligible for the CA renter's credit?

(an earworm keeps distracting me... "Trailer For Rent" by The Pistol Annies

Many comparisons and what ifs (some of them ranging from the absurd to the improbable) have been rendered in this thread but the fact remains that property taxes reflect what a ready and willing buyer will pay for a property or the price paid. In the case of Stanford staff residences the price reflex the terms of the sale, that is the Stanford property is not a freehold one.
The terms of qualified ownership are the only guide to the transaction and value of the improvement (the building/s) reflects that. If I was Santa Clara County I wouldn't be so eager for a court fight and be concerned about the resolution.

I have a hard time believing that Larry Stone would support an action regarding Stanford that he is not absolutely certain is unassailable. Stanford has the money, the connections, and the legal smarts to fight any action that it deems objectionable. Why would SCC invite that battle?

As a College Terrace resident, the presence of empty Stanford-owned homes was particularly inexplicable and, frankly, sad, during the height of the housing shortage. The consequences, which include horrible traffic, time spent in long commutes, the exhaustion, expenses. and environmental negatives associated with that, people choosing to live in RVs on El Camino Real, and nearby communities struggling to find housing for people who work in this area were - are - dire. Stanford could have provided more housing to its own people by using the properties that sat empty. It is almost laughable that Stanford has a new school dedicated to environmental studies, when it assaults the local environment in numerous ways on the issue of housing alone.

Hey Annette, were you part of the College Terrace crowd that the protested the building of denser housing in College Terrace? Looks like College Terrace is at the forefront of the housing crisis. Congratulations on your success. Web Link

I'm not sure what people here don't appear to understand: that SCC is taxiing these properties NOT at the purchase price but at an imaginary "fair market value" that doesn't take into account the restrictions on the properties or the other costs of ownership (like that the owner of the house pays monthly rent to live there.)

"WHEREFORE, Stanford prays for judgment as follows:
1. For judgment in favor of Stanford against Defendant County;
2. For an order recognizing the College Interest in the Property is entitled to the College
Exemption;
3. For an order recognizing the Faculty Interest is the only non-exempt interest in the
Property and as such is the only interest in the Property subject to property taxes;
4. For an order recognizing that, in accordance with R&TC section 110, the full cash
value of the non-exempt Faculty Interest is indicated by the Faculty Lessee’s
purchase price, while the full cash value of the exempt College Interest is any and all
residual Property value that exceeds the taxable value of the Faculty Interest. Or, in
the alternative, an order remanding the matter to the Assessment Appeals Board with
specific instructions that the Assessment Appeals Board recognize that, in accordance
with R&TC section 110, the full cash value of the non-exempt Faculty Interest is
indicated by the Faculty Lessee’s purchase price, while the full cash value of the
exempt College Interest is any and all residual Property value that exceeds the taxable
value of the Faculty Interest;
5. For an order refunding the 2021-22 property taxes Stanford paid on the full cash
value of the College Interest in the Property in the amount of $9,087.03"

Nowhere in this prayer mentions asking the County to forgive or reduce or otherwise change the buyer's/owner's/lessee's obligation to the County. You can't get what you're not asking for in a court of law. What Stanford is saying is that the County MISCALCULATED the University's portion of the tax. But like I said, they made an error in their claim. They can fix it but it's still not going to be changed to ask as judge to let the buyer off the hook for taxes due.

Read the pleading.

And the exhibits.

Web Link

And you can bet if it happens, as soon as Stanford U receives a refund for their overpayment, Stanford will take action against the tenant for failure to pay taxes. A copy of the ground lease is included in the exhibits of the pleading. Says tenant has to pay all applicable taxes.

To the "pay your fair share!" complainers. Please, educate yourself both about school funding and Palo Alto taxes. First, it is highly likely that Stanford faculty - particularly the younger faculty with children in school - on average, are paying higher property taxes than Palo Altans because those homes turn over more frequently than Palo Alto homes do. The person who said that newer homeowners subsidize the older homeowners is absolutely correct. Yet, since Larry Stone insists upon keeping the tax records in some 1980s inaccessible format, it's not a simple task to simply query what the median and average household property tax paid by zipcode is. That would be worth knowing. Because, according to information put out by the PAUSD Board Members, if you're paying $45K or more in property taxes, then you're close to covering the cost of sending one of your children to school. If you're not paying that, then I guess you're not paying your fair share. And, what about renters - which make up about 40% of households in Palo Alto? Are they paying their "fair share?" Some of those properties passed to people who don't even live in the area and benefit from prop 13 by paying taxes based on what their parents paid for those homes back in 1979 or so. Let's go after renters next for not paying their fair share! Oh, and what about households that don't have children in the PAUSD school district? Are they overpaying? Should we let childless households decide if they want their taxes to benefit a Stanford household's child? Or a Palo Altans? Palo Altans complaining about Stanford faculty not paying their fair share should be ashamed of themselves. Truly

Maybe, just maybe Stanford should dip into its $30B endowment to pay professors enough to live here. Property tax increase was likely $10-20K more per year.

Seriously, why is the rest of Palo Alto and the county being asked to pick up the slack?

It makes sense to me that people who are eligible to buy/rent on campus instead opt to buy/rent in Palo Alto and other nearby communities that are not deed-restricted. I can think of several I know who do just that. This wasn't such a big problem pre Silicon Valley when housing was more available and more affordable. This is just an observation. I do not have answers to this conundrum and from what I can tell, I am not alone in that. But I do think it makes sense for Stanford to use more of its resources to help its own community.

Are there any lawyers in the house who can unpack the actual complaint that was submitted to the court? The headlines for this article are misleading. Stanford is not asking for the County to make faculty housing tax exempt. Nor are they asking for more of anything that hasn't been set in stone for the University, for eons. A court considers all of the evidence at hand. Though Stanford's exhibits have flaws, it doesn't state anywhere they want more exemptions or to get exemptions for faculty. If anyone can find it in THIS LINK Web Link by all means please point it out to me. Also, I have not seen a copy of the answer to the complaint anywhere. Until all of the facts are on the table, these comments are merely conjecture. Makes for good entertainment and clicks for the publisher, but they get us no closer to actually understanding the claim.

Thank you for the link. I encourage everyone to read the petition. Stanford's case is solid and if the county had done this to anyone but Stanford, there would be outrage. Basically, starting about 2017 people who buy homes on campus have been getting big surprises in their tax bills. They may have bought their home at the fair market value of $2.1M, but the County has decided that their place is really worth $3M and their tax bill reflects that newly appraised value. The County's argument is that if that home was half a mile away in the College Terrace area of Palo Alto, or a little further across El Camino in Palo Alto, it would have sold for $3M, so that's what it should be appraised at. But, the home is not in Palo Alto. Stanford maintains the roads, sidewalks, grounds, sewer, fire services (contracted out), etc. not Palo Alto. Stanford has basically said, even if the tax assessor is correct and the home is worth $3M, the amount above what the faculty member paid is Stanford's interest because Stanford owns the land and controls how the leasehold can use the property. Faculty can't pass their home to their children; must live there; can only rent if they take a sabbatical for no more than one year; can't rent out a room, etc. The CA courts have long upheld the provision in CA's constituion that non-profit educational institutions lands - even those used for faculty housing - are tax exempt. Stanford is asking for the courts to recognize their tax exempt status. Tax the property on the fair market value paid for the property like you do everyone else. If you think there's additional value because it's on Stanford property, then that's Stanford's portion of the bill.

There are other places where the homes depend on a ground lease. The Greenhouse condos in Palo Alto are an example. None of those condos own any land. It's not apparently affecting the sales prices and taxes of those condos. The breakdown in taxation between land and improvements is fairly arbitrary to start with. For Greenhouse condos it seems that the value is still contained somewhere in the total valuation that is taxed.

There is a case to be made that the ground leases themselves are a property which could be taxed. Land values affect all the homes in the area, and land is increasing in value. The rub is Prop 13 and how things are regulated until they are sold. Sell the home on Stanford land and even though the land doesn't change owners, the ground lease does. Is Stanford holding these ground lease prices fixed over time? Are they equal for current and new owners? There's more to this than may appear at first glance.

@RDR. Clearly you didn't read the complaint. Read the complaint. But, if you're not willing to, in a nutshell, the County has decided that the homes on Stanford are worth more than what the homeowners have paid for them. The County is coming up with these higher appraisals by looking at "comparable houses" in nearby Palo Alto neighborhoods. Stanford's argument is simply that this perceived additional value (difference between FMV paid and tax assessor's appraised value) is what Stanford's interest in the property is, so please tax the homeowner like you do everyone else - FMV. Look at property taxes for condos at the Hamilton in Palo Alto. The condo prices seem "low" relative to other condos in Palo Alto, but it is an age restricted community with high HOAs that cover meals, etc. Are those condos valued and taxed at higher amount than what the person paid for it? The FMV is considerably lower than other condos nearby.

Now we need a realtor, an appraiser, AND a lawyer to come in here and explain every facet. But from what I get from reading the complaint, Stanford isn't going so far as to try to help their faculty (tenants) to get a lower tax rate as much as they are trying to get out of standing up for their faculty altogether. Stanford is putting all of the faculty's tax burden and the ensuing legal hassles on their tenant's shoulders, and they want that carved in stone. Any time a house is sold, it gets re-appraised. "Value" is in the eyes of whatever the market will bear, these days. Which leads me to a question: How did the federal court decide to assess SBF's parent's house? Did they know if he flees they can only auction it off to other Stanford faculty?

I looked up the subject property on the county assessor web site. The Cedro Way property's parcel shows as a lease with the $3 Million assessed value. Of that all but about $200K is identified as LAND value. In many cases of business property, the tax is billed to the lease holder. It doesn't matter what the tenant pays for the lease, but instead it's the value of the property as FMV. The issue is that Stanford wants to claim some special exception because they are tax exempt, but the issue is they are leasing it to someone who is not. I don't think Stanford's going to win this one. This is just another issue caused by all the soaring local property values. There could be some issue with the IRS for Stanford to be allowing faculty to use this property without taxing the value of the lease as income. It could get worse. That might be another reason Stanford wants to split off this land value from the homeowner's cost. and pretend it doesn't exist.

I'm sympathetic to middle class/low income folk whose expenses/taxes suddenly increase.

No lawmaker would ever think of doing anything equivalent to the sudden crushing increase of taxes on middle class homeowners in blue states from 2017. When wealthier get tax increases, there is usually a phase in.

(If there was going to be a SALT deduction limit based on economic stratum, it should have been adjusted by cost-of-living by region to avoid seriously unequal treatment under the law. And if homeowners were going to lose their ability to deduct these for what for most is their only major investment, then so, too, should real estate investors--the fact that the law seriously ADVANTAGED wealthy real estate investors while hitting just middle class and even poor homeowners in high cost-of-living-blue states, contributed to housing inflation dynamics. It's why Biden should keep his promise and reverse or fix it. Cal Matters found the majority of the tax raised came from the wealthiest, but the majority of PEOPLE hit in CA came from middle class and poor income ranges, i.e., adjusting the limit to account for cost-of-living to avoid turning ordinary people's lives upside down would have been more humane and resulted in much of the tax raised anyway.)

People don't understand that getting into some kind of ownership in this state is the only way to stabilize housing costs. Ordinary people have to view it in the long term, and have to count on those conditions, like taxes. Most people cannot afford their own homes a few months down the line. Sudden changes in those conditions, as noted above, is life altering.

It's not clear to me how the county can suddenly reassess those properties? Aren't they protected by Prop 13? Also, if Stanford is leasing the land, shouldn't Stanford pay the portion that is for the land value?

Part of me wants Stanford to win, so that municipalities can use this model to stabilize housing costs for teachers, firefighters, police, etc

Another conundrum in the schools' sites: In addition to Nixon and Escondido elementary schools, both Paly High and Gunn High are on Stanford land. If they cease to be used as schools, the property reverts to Stanford. This is why Cubberley High school was closed when Palo Alto no longer needed three high schools. It is on Palo Alto land.

"Stanford has provided much of the land for Palo Alto schools. Today, four schools are located on 112 acres previously owned by the university — Palo Alto High School, Gunn High School, Escondido Elementary School and Nixon Elementary School. These lands comprise 40 percent of the current PAUSD land portfolio."

Web Link

If we want to change the situation, we need to work together on gradual roll back of Prop 13. I am speaking as a senior citizen who is a long-term homeowner who benefits from Prop 13 and who pays the full shot on school parcel taxes even though my senior status would enable me not to. I willingly pay taxes for services I value, including excellent public schools for our community's children, though my children graduated from PAUSD many years ago.

Stanford, while the community does benefit in many ways from your presence, we also pay VERY handsomely for it in transportation systems, community services, and schools your employees and students use every day. The university and Stanford Research Park's (SRP) efforts to pay less and less of their fair share in taxes makes it harder to see symbiotic balance that once existed under former leadership. A more creative and collaborative approach to problem solving, rather than unleashing your lawyers against your neighbors, would be appreciated.

@MyFeelz "Trailer for Rent" isn't that country crooner, Roger Miller. By the way he RM also wrote and sung the song for Disney's animated "Robinhood". No kidding. RM really understands (did understand, RIP) the wealth disparities.

@Native By The Bay, Roger Miller wrote and sang my signature song, "King Of The Road" !!! I still have a vinyl record, probably worth at least a dime more than it cost back in the day. If you haven't heard Trailer For Rent, written by Miranda Lambert and sung by her sometimes girl-group, Pistol Annies, your ears are in for a treat. Web Link What RM did was put income disparity themes in some catchy music and I think most people who hear KOTR don't even understand the lyrics. A serious jokester. Surely he could entertain us with a song about County Taxes and tenants who have to pay property taxes while their landlords don't. Everybody is overthinking this. Misleading article, leads to misappropriation of my brain cells.

@Native -- I accidentally changed your name. Sorry!

Still no attorneys watching this to demonstrate how Stanford's prayer translates to words on this page here?

"the county and local jurisdictions could lose nearly $5 million annually, which includes a $2.3 million loss for the Palo Alto Unified School District"

Stanford wants to send the children that live on Stanford grounds to PAUSD schools, but they don't want to contribute at all towards PAUSD?

Sounds like Stanford. Not surprising actually.

FYI: Stanford is also buying up lands in College Terrace as they put through bully offers of all cash. City of Palo Alto needs to recongize allowing one single entity (be it a company, hedge fund, Stanford or any other organization) to buy up property after property within the City of Palo Alto, this will lead to worsening of the City of Palo Alto in living quality and standards.

@MyFeelz the nativeness too. I listened to Pistol A's song. Nice. TY. What our StanfordAlto needs is more shared poetry in "real time". Let's keep those trailer wheels greased. I'll organize for a local bookstore or cafe yet... I have no names of local poets, artists, performers and willing to do the grunt work worthy of an evening of such.

My first album: a "Charlie Christian" LP. I had the foresight to give it to a friend who still plays it on her hifi. It's always been the only vinyl she's ever possessed.

At times, there have been many Stanford faculty kids in PAUSD schools (I’m sure it fluctuates); property taxes support our school system. We are a basic aid district, if I recall the expression correctly. It’s not based on money from the state based on daily student attendance.
Stanford does not get educational use out of houses/land underneath in CollegeTerrace neighborhood of PA, for example; it IS housing. Let’s have fairness for all.
- a heavily taxed homeowner with an average house and no kids in the schools

@MyFeelz again & @Annonomous this so called “town” is void of more street side artistic involvement — it’s an imbalanced scale of a non visual Ethernet power which sucks our creative marrow, dry. The virtual “in-existence” is stealing our souls from human contact with each other. Such is upsetting the rhythm of time/space/place we all so badly need. Anachronistic. In a word.

[Post removed; successive comments by same poster are not permitted.]

@Palo Alto Res You said it better than I. Obviously, a Century and a half later on the West Coast, StanfordAlto is not syncing up for the betterment of a healthy, growing of a two town community of one economy.

It’d be worthy of an academic study ???? to evaluate which West Coast California university towns are syncing with their (literally) across the street resident, commercial tax, infrastructure housing needs : Humboldt, Chico, Sonoma State, St. Mary’s, Berkeley, Notre Dame, Santa Clara, San Jose State, Stanislas, Fresno
(I am sure I am missing many) — all bordering or in the boundary of a city or town. Which are truly working in tandem to better the community services all are involved and take part?

Q: was/ is Stanford the very first accredited university to set foot on California soil? Perhaps this in lies the problem. Legacy rules the roost.

@Palo Alto Res there is also Turo, Dominican, SF State, Chapman, Mills, Santa Cruz U as well as many, many many private universities and 2 year junior colleges along and around the Bay . My point? How are California cities and towns fairing w high stake accredited colleges and universities in the mix of 21Century stretched city services & budgets?

In years of past. Yeah get a house w a bunch of roommates, low cost rent, divide up utilities & chores. Landlords okay with that— even advertise such. Now it’s high high stake rents game. 1 bathroom, 4 beds to one 4 walled room, off campus.

Prevail! Idea.

Once beyond a freshman, enlarge the freshman dorms to sophomore capacity and beyond. double the room size occupancy and build bigger, higher, on campus! You can accommodate for grade level, maturing undergrads.

The further the years of academia the more quiet and space necessary to churn out the graduates, successfully. Or is this not the objective?

At Palo Alto Res I spoke up in 1998
As a jr college student taking loans out. Why am I paying full tuition for adjunct teaching professors? Silence. So now it’s in the Federal Supreme Court court. Yet this blasphemy is decades long. I was instructed mostly by non tenured, adjunct professors, while paying full tuition. It would have saved me thousands of dollars in student loan debt had I been informed as a degree bound consumer.

To live off campus (no dorms existed on my school of choice) to pay half tuition fees my for 1/2 time professors. What?!

I would have absolutely creamed at getting 100% tenured instruction. Sadly that was not so.
Yet the loans and Pell grants rolled out as such. So # 1 Stanford standing ,
make it right & livable for your student body. Elite rinse and repeat is no longer.

Education, housing as a humane righting the wrong.

@Palo Alto Res and Anonymous. Stanford homeowners DO pay property taxes. They pay the exact same tax breakdown/percentage for schools as Palo Alto residents do. The lawsuit is about the county re-appraising homes on Stanford campus. The "fair share" argument is a red herring manufactured by the School Board. If the tax assessor made the data readily accessible, I feel pretty certain that you'd find that the average Stanford home owner pays, on average, as much or more than the average Palo Alto homeowner does. Why? Because the properties on Stanford campus are turned over more frequently than the ones in Palo Alto so they've been more recently assessed. Some homes in Palo Alto are paying property taxes based on their FMV back in 1979.

@Cresent Park Rez so how does Stanford account for all the fallow land it sits on w NO housing? The quaint wooded areas across ECR and west to 280, are very two centuries ago. It is stupifying to pass those (Le) Lands while so many thousands in our county remain unhomed. And too their enrolled and hired employees struggle mighty for cover. At least make thier open space a National park to justify its wall
Yes defiant inaction. That!’d be a reason or a gate not to develop. Instead Stanford treads on PA transit center as a property not to put housing. While “sand bagging” territorial walls of open space, boundaries along west ECR.

@native to the bay. You need to ask the County that question because the County has restricted Stanford’s development to an area known as the academic growth boundary. Basically, if you don’t see anything developed on stanford’s lands now, you won’t.