<p>
You are mistaken in your reading of law. U.S. Supreme Court decisions are binding upon all courts, federal or state, in a matter of federal law. If we’re talking about IRS, that’s a federal authority. Now, if you want to keep it solely within local authority and talk only about the property taxes, then substantial harm would still apply because it is a legal principle. The Court only reaffirmed this principle. The principle is that the plaintiff must demonstrate substantial harm in order for him/her to seek a judicial remedy. Otherwise, what harm is to be remedied by the court? If there is no tangible and personal harm, then the justices, even of the state court, would only be legislating from the bench. </p>
<p>In any case, you make a compelling point there. I would like to see the hard data there. I mean, you also have to take into account what is going into the town budget. I do understand that they are building a new police station as a result of the recent merger, but I think it’s only fair to assess the town’s budget in terms of what is actually needed and what is extraneous. I would analyze what the plaintiffs’ attorneys claim and analyze it well. I never take what lawyers say at face value - no offense to lawyers on here. </p>
<p>Now, the plaintiffs allege that those profits are distributed to professors. Now, it is not clear whether that goes towards research funds or whatever else. If it’s increasing salaries earned by professors, one could also make the argument that increasing salary attracts top professors, which betters the quality of research the institution produces. It’s all very interesting.</p>