New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-09-27

Ike lowest county according TO population y
T5 cents for each inlabtant OF the county ana noa
is the hghest-S6 81 for each person Ill 'no eoun'' 70"
city. .,, ,,oroostro neiohbors over
the river in Brooklyn have cause of complaint as ey
pay of State taxes 81 So for saeh porso - Ere County
onght to be our fast friends and regard with peca
favor aud consideration our cy more tSan Erie
County The total population in this state according TO
the census OF 1865, 3,S3T In 1905 Ihe alou' Va
STATE Ara tax 10 each person in the State was 81 Co.
The state tax in Ohio in 1865 per capita, was 81 ooh
In Iowa, In 1867, per capita, II cents
In Illinois, In 1868, per capita 81 Glt suou
The total of state and City taxes III this City for lS6S
was 225s5429 90. Estimating the population az tS
rate Of tax on each 81 valuation 49, The highest
the 81 valuation was in HasOh and the
amount per capita, was els Co. according " '"'
be vnnaton Of real estate in the County of Kings for
1869 as equalzcd by the Board OF state AssesIors
add I'D e to PTpP number Of
returned in the OF 1865, In kings Co4hy, Nus
g 10 7Go lots of land The valuation OF the real estate
nf tIe CITY, as returned by the Assessors IN 1905 was
returned In the census OF 1868 Allow
ing TO the valuation of real estate IN 1909 te hkekT
value Of the l526O lots In Brooklyn; Is tooy eaTn IN,
$1,000 each the value is sSo55sOOOO Much nearer INC
% nersomal property Of Kings County h returned at
s94g sl7 This less than tue capital OF the banks IN
COMPANIES and capital T renSn n the Third
District part only Of Brooklyn, IN lsesWas SiJSo ~
ia
a of assessed valuation Is very high because the yau
ton is very lows We have statedhat the census OF 1870
returned the number of dwenShouses III Kings county
ut 2a or this number, Slgto Vel ~ az 1 hsn
they valued at s20GooO5 Now these Sl,yio u.t
they would be estimated and assessed. IN payment
of lust debt due from solvent debtor. az
Sas os sO and the FASH lots occupied with other
buildings, and unocenpied are worth ~ least s,o eaS
I'm Brooklyn at estimate far below the average selling
prices $4,000. We do not say, as real estate 10
at
ought be assessed at this value But II real properly
given real value Of the real property IN Brooklyn
not too high Tho real estate owners canot oftsh
complain OF high valuation Of their property, "
they do OF high rate per cent, on the valuation Tor
The Board Of Supervisors OF Kings County In 1896 com
nlained that the State last year us6 III the
assessment Of the City Of New-York, made reduction
and added large portion the 10 the assessment
az Kings Counyn Was tins complaint OF the super.
yisOrs OF Kings County based Oh Tact ana Jnseo Le'
The il262i lots improved and unimprovcd In the city
OF New-l Qrk assessed this year at S11 65, NJ an
average OF $ill3 ~ per loa total oi sasS!loS, hs -
reduction on the valuation OF lo OF the real
estate OF the CITY Of New-lork OF t5G,5s5 40 -
Brooklyn for 1869 is $3.50 each The assessed value o. the
iI2e2l lots IN the city Of Newlork 49, per iys Si9 ~
valuation OF each lot in tho CITY Of Dry%hyn tand TIN.
lie Supervisors OF Kings County TO select few o he
most pfoninen. '"luahs lots OF land with the v
basis FOR their complaints. as they did In Iso6 They
must the whole valuations aud, We think the state
| nents we have made Of the average value.
The total Increase In Assessed value OF the real os-
il equazed by the state Board OF AsseseTs OF 1909
over 1865 $5IGO6 The increase Of personal property
over 1905 returned by the Town and Ward Absessors
seo93 making the total increase OF taxable property
in state In 1909, 1865, OF 2lg2. tbs amount,
being s4493 less than returned by the Assessors Of
Kings County In 1865 as the increase OF real aud personal
property IN that county yplue ne assessed in %
There was returned income IN the several Districts
in the State OF NewYok IN 1863 the sum OF t )7 coo 80
and yet the total increase Of personal property returned
by the Assessors throughout the state for 1902 Is only
lOlg3 the amount OF 1868 It'll certainly evident
that some officials have neglected their duty "in not
making dqeHt inquiry TO ascertain the names o all the
taxable Inhabitants IN their respective towns or wards
as the statute requires