explaining that an institution operated entirely free from a private profit motive where it operated at a substantial loss for many years
How later courts described this case
- explaining that an institution operated entirely free from a private profit motive where it operated at a substantial loss for many years
- private horticultural facility which, at best, supplements limited cultural facilities government is obliged to provide
- private horticultural facility is a charity entitled to a tax exemption
- Appeal of Longwood Gardens
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIGRO, Justice,
dissenting.
Today the majority continues down a slippery slope ending in enabling most, if not all, of the non-profit corporations of this Commonwealth to obtain an exemption from real estate taxes. This decision opens the door for all private corporations that offer something of aesthetic or cultural value to the public — including museums of art, history and science, as well as musical and theatrical endeavors — to claim a real estate tax exemption. As expressed in my dissent in City of Washington v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 704 A.2d 120 (Pa.1997), the HUP test should instead be applied to reinforce the traditional characteristics of charities rather than expand their scope to the point that the term charity is meaningless.
As established by the Court in Hospital Utilization Project v. Commonwealth, 507 Pa. 1 , 487 A.2d 1306 (1985), an element of a purely public charity is that it relieves the government of some of its burden. The test for whether an entity relieves the government of some of its burden “is whether the institution bears a substantial burden that would otherwise fall to the government.” St. Margaret Seneca Place v. Bd. of Property Assessment, 536 Pa. 478, 487 , 640 A.2d 380, 385 (1994). In St. Margaret Seneca Place , the Court found that a nursing home met this requirement where the trial court found that but for the nursing home, patients whose costs were not fully covered by Medicaid would have to be cared for in county-provided facilities.
In contrast, the majority cites no evidence of record supporting that Longwood Gardens bears a burden that would *223 otherwise fall upon the government. The Commonwealth’s duty to conserve public natural resources under the Constitution and the related legislation upon which the majority relies, do not establish that an extensive, private horticultural facility like Longwood Gardens relieves the government of a burden. Simply because the Commonwealth protects its own resources and provides certain services to the public, does not mean it has assumed an unlimited obligation. 1
Like many other attractions throughout this Commonwealth, I have visited Longwood Gardens and appreciate the aesthetic and cultural value of the gardens, open air theater, and other facilities. However, the private foundation’s decision to provide these services to the public for a fee should not entail an exemption from real estate taxes for the 422 acres at issue. For these reasons, I dissent.
. Certainly, the government has assumed an obligation to provide some cultural activities to the public. The government, however, chooses the cultural endeavors it will pursue and its burden ends there. Thus, private corporations that decide to operate their own cultural enterprises are not relieving the government of a burden that would otherwise fall upon it.