<p>Specifically, the case mainly concerns one professor, who patented a chemical that became developed as an anti-cancer drug. The University made money from the patent and split it with the professor. Now, this is all fair, except that the plaintiffs claim that the University’s practice of splitting profits (essentially just this one patent to the professor) justifies its loss of tax-exempt status. Then they jump from this issue to claiming that 19 buildings on Princeton’s campus should be taxed, including Frist Center and McCarter Theater. The main claim is that these buildings are used for “non-academic” purposes. As to Frist, I am sure this is a case of the townspeople not being well-informed of its function. While Frist may sell tickets to student performances (open to the general public) and sell food in the gallery, all upper levels are appropriated for academic purposes. I have studied countless times in the study spaces in Frist, as well as used the OIT computer clusters on the upper floors. I have had several classes held in there. Frist includes a lecture hall and extensive library on East Asian Studies. The MAJORITY of Frist is definitely used for academic purposes. </p>
<p>Now, as to McCarter theater, it hosts student performances. The main problem here is that it sells tickets to the general public. So I see a simple solution to this. Cease the practice of selling tickets/food to the townspeople, who are obviously ungrateful for it. Make Princeton insular and even further removed from the town, if that’s what the townspeople want. Those townspeople who appropriate Frist Center spaces can walk all the way to Nassau for lunch and not use the Gallery. </p>
<p>As to buildings like Prospect House, it may be harder to definite their academic purposes, though Prospect House is essentially the faculty dining hall. They have those at other universities, don’t they? </p>
<p>Oh, and the fact that townspeople would pay a third or so less in property taxes does not constitute a substantial harm (if one need be met, which, in this case, it seems like it does not need to be met unless it gets appealed to a federal court). For instance, if my local public high school started paying property taxes, my property taxes would go down. However, I’m not exactly harmed by them NOT paying. That payment should never even exist, so I can’t claim harm by its not existing, if that makes sense.</p>