…She lies in the Tehran street with her headscarf half-off, blood pooling around her jeans and white sneakers.

“Don’t be afraid, Neda dear, don’t be afraid,” a white-haired man says desperately in Persian. Another man presses on her chest, trying to keep her alive.

Scarlet blood gushes from her nose and mouth and courses across her pale face. Men and women scream in horror as they realize she is dead or dying. – AP, 6/22/09

The murder of 27 year old  Neda Agha-Soltan at a protest in Tehran likely by Basij militia or Revolutionary Guards has become a tragic yet equally powerful symbol for Iran’s struggle for freedom and given her a martyr’s status in Iran. In less than 48 hours, the 40 second video was all over YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter with over a million impressions (An aside: Social media has finally justified its otherwise navel-gazing existince). Old media followed soon after, spreading the video world-wide and into the mainstream consciousness. Nearly a week after the video was recorded it is still one of the most-searched terms on the web, and today alone over 14,264 blog posts and news articles have been written about her.

YouTube: Iranian woman killed June 20, 2009 by Ali Khamanei [WARNING: The preceding link contains the real and graphic death of a human being.]

But it didn’t take long for comparisons of Tiananmen’s Tank Man to start rolling in. I am not sure how accurate these comparisons are given many differences between the two examples, but as powerful symbols of the struggle for freedom they are close. One such difference is that images of the Tank Man have near-universal familiarity and meaning to the rest of the world; In China, however, the powerful imagery of the Tank Man, is largely baffling to the younger affluent and educated generation many of whom had parents at the protests. On the other hand, the images of Neda’s death have become a rallying cry for protesters in Iran, and despite complete media control, seems to be having an impact on the greater Iranian population to the detriment of the Islamic Republic’s authority.

Furthermore, while the unprecedented protests in Tiananmen Square failed to liberalize the government of China, as the protesters had hoped, they did lead to economic reform. These economic reforms were still a far cry from the freedoms and accountability originally sought and that are still far out of reach. Meanwhile, Iran by some accounts is still fluid situation – although the edge still certainly remains on the side of the Islamic Republic. But the façade is nonetheless cracked and Ayatollah Khomenei can no longer take his power for granted in light of a younger generation that overwhelmingly seeks reform.

I really want to hear what some of you are thinking about all of this.

What do you think of the comparison of Neda to the Tank Man from Tiananmen Square? Is this a fair comparison? What do you think will be the ramifications of the poignant, public display of Neda’s sacrifice? Is she the Tank Man of the Internet-generation?

If things are bad in Providence, they are much worse in Boston. In 2002, the BRA found that 50% of property in Boston was tax exempt. This study was conducted before the massive land grab by Harvard in Allston and Northeastern’s expansion into Lower Roxbury. It’s safe to assume that with these notable expansions along with many others, the amount of tax-exempt land is notably larger than 50%.

Boston gains a tremendous economic and cultural benefit from its large number of colleges and universities. But their presence does come at a high cost that is paid by the rest of us. The worst economy in a generation has caused municipalities to slash budgets for essential services and forced local governments to look for new means of creating revenue. It’s hard not to notice that despite being similarly hit by the economy, many schools are flushed with cash and just sitting on hundred of millions (and some even with billions) of dollars. The economic reality has pushed a long-ignored issue to the forefront of Boston’s Mayoral race.

Per-Student Fees
I find the per-student tax to be a very interesting approach to a PILOT system. It strikes me as infinitely more transparent and fair than the current system that happens mostly behind closed doors and from the beginning uses a flawed methodology to calculate fees levied on the colleges and universities.

Negotiations begin by looking at the value of property owned by the college or university. The problem with starting with property value, is that it ignores the largest cost to the city which are the students.  It ignores that schools over-enroll forcing many more students to live off campus and naturally the many more students who choose to live off-campus. Off-campus students are even more apt to use municipal resources and yet are not accounted for at all under the current system. This is the way I see the advantages and disadvantages of per-student fees broken down.

Advantages:

• Accurately taxes Colleges and Universities for impact and use of services in the city
• Includes students who live off campus who use municipal and city services more than their on-campus counterparts
• A public, accountable, and equitable system across the board. No more closed-room dealings with City and university officials that lead to some schools paying more than others.
• Per-Student fees become a separate part of tuition fees rather than squirreled away inappropriately under Student Activity or Maintenance fees

Disadvantages:

• Fee paid directly from students
• Potentially higher cost to students
• Doesn’t address needed reform PILOT fees required of Hospitals and other non-profits

It’s important to note that any progressive changes to the PILOT system will likely lead to students paying more. So it becomes a question of whether you tax the students directly (per pupil, per semester) or indirectly (an overall negotiated fee to the city). I happen to think the former is fairer to everyone involved.

Where is Boston heading? Good question!
In January, Boston’s Mayor Menino announced the formulation of a task force to revise Boston’s PILOT program. Thankfully not lost in the Mayor’s typical fanfare, was the announcement that the four of the six committee members represent organizations that would pay more under a more aggressive PILOT structure. These members include Robert Brown the President of BU, Zorica Pantic President of Wentworth Institute of Technology, Patricia McGovern the general counsel of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and Thomas Glynn the Chief Operating Officer of Partners Healthcare.

The conflict of interest here is obvious. Even moreso to the rest of us left footing the bill.