Harvard, Pay Your PILOTs

As Harvard’s conflict with Washington intensifies, its nonprofit status has been threatened, and with it, so has our University’s exemption from property taxes. That exemption saved it — and cost Boston and Cambridge residents — Bloomberg estimates $158 million in 2023 alone.

While I reject the Trump administration’s reason for targeting Harvard’s nonprofit status, such threats prompt a serious reconsideration of Harvard’s non-payment of property taxes.

To reduce the impact of lost revenue from nonprofit property tax exemptions, many cities have introduced a voluntary Payment in Lieu of Taxes program, decided based on negotiation between cities and nonprofits. For universities with expansive landholdings, PILOTs present an opportunity to support the public services they consume and strengthen community partnerships.

For 12 consecutive years, Harvard fell short of Boston’s requested PILOTs, which cover only a quarter of what the University would otherwise pay. Furthermore, much of the University’s contributions have taken the form of dubiously-defined community benefits, not cash. If Harvard is truly committed to the well-being of its neighbors, it must pay its full PILOT — in cash.

Harvard controls nearly 873 acres of land in the Boston area, almost all of which is exempt from property taxes. In 2023, the combined value of these properties was assessed at $1.5 billion.

For Boston, which relied on property taxes for 73 percent of its revenue in 2024, these extensive landholdings present a serious problem. For every acre purchased by a non-profit, Boston loses valuable funding that might otherwise support public schools, maintain streets and parks, or keep residents fed and housed.

Harvard’s tax-exempt status has allowed the University to freeload off many of these services. Well-maintained streets, functioning sewage systems, working public transportation, and other domains of the municipality are essential to the operations of the University and its affiliates.

It is true that some of the money Harvard neglects to pay in taxes may instead fund cutting-edge research our University has defended in the face of federal funding cuts. That research has the potential to advance health and well-being across the globe.

But it’s also true that, as I’ve discussed throughout this column, activist groups have found Harvard’s ambitious research mission to have been supported in part by predatory and destructive investments in natural resources in South Africa, Australia, Brazil, and Argentina. Harvard sold much of that land, failing to accept responsibility for the harm it produced. Harvard must not allow the same to happen in Boston.

In place of property taxes, PILOTs have become a crucial mechanism for tax-exempt institutions such as Harvard to remunerate the city for its services without paying the full otherwise expected amount.

Harvard, however, has found other ways to avoid payment. Boston’s PILOT program allows for up to half the city’s requested contribution to be satisfied by “community benefits,” which institutions have broad discretion to define.

Harvard has not only failed to meet Boston’s PILOT requests, it has also consistently maxed out its allowed community benefits. It fulfilled less than 80 percent of the city’s 2023 figure — only 30 percent was met in cash.

These “community benefits” seem to do just as much good for Harvardians as they do for Bostonians — Harvard’s spending on these programs, while providing tangible benefits to Boston residents cannot be understood as solely for city residents.

The two community benefits with the highest assessed values were the Arnold Arboretum, valued at over $10 million, and Harvard Law School’s clinical and pro-bono programs, valued at $5 million.

The Arboretum may provide well-maintained green spaces for residents to enjoy, but it also serves as an academic space for students studying plants and ecology. Similarly, while Harvard Law School clinics and pro-bono programs supply free-of-charge legal assistance to Bostonians, participating in such programs also provides valuable first-hand legal field experience to Harvard students. Construing such programs as “community benefits” is dubious at best and disingenuous at worst — and falls far short of meeting the basic needs of Boston’s residents.

If Harvard is serious about defending its nonprofit status from political threats, it must make good on its commitments to serve the public — especially Boston residents. It should start by paying its fair share of PILOTs in the only form that can provide truly essential services to community members: cash.

Kayla P.S. Springer ’26 is a Social Studies concentrator in Pforzheimer House and an organizer with Stop Harvard Land Grabs.