The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1876-03-10
Something ahOut TayeS.

1t is often said especially at election times
that the Outlying and unoccupied lands of the
city. value considered, are not taxed in pro-
portion to other property in the city. For
instance, the Argus, at the recent election,
endeavored to show that the Deering and
Preble heirs by being lightly taxed "were en-
abled to hold on to their lands till they could
obtain exorbitant prices for them. 1t cited on
the authority of resident of Mupjoy Hill that
the Skolfeds of Brunswick, with the intent
of establishing ship yard, have offered the
Deering heirs some $4,000 for piece of land
on Munjoy, that was ta1ed for only .fre hun
dred dollars. This certainly would have sus-
tanned such an assumption if true. On in
quiry of the assessors we ascertained that
neither the Deering nor Preble heirs had
owned foot of land on Mupjoy bordering
on the water, for more than eight years-that
long ago the larger part of what they had
owned had been sold to Messrs. William Cur
tis, j. s. Winslow, Russell Lewis and others,
at very moderate price for ship yard.
SO much for the assumption that the own
ers OF such lands were driving away business
enterprises by demanding exorbtant compen-
sation for their lands. We were also informed
by the assessors that the person who furnished
the argus with the information stated that
the Skolfied's had offered ten cents a square
foot for large tract of land in that locality
which would at that price aggregate $4,000,
and that this piece of land was valued at $500
by the assessors. The assessors showed by
their books that five-sixths of the land in
question was valued at $500. Now the party
who furnished the argus with the informa-
tion denies all responsibility for the inaccura-
cy OF that papers statement respecting the
tax valuation! 1t was mistake of $4,000 in
sum of $500 just before election.
The "Deering PASTURE and "oaks' have
frequently been alluded to by the argus and
others as undervalued for taxation. Indeed
this misrepresentation has been so current
that many fair-minded men have fallen into
the belief that such is the fact. How stands
the case? Within the past twelve years the
most valuable portion of the "pasture" has
been sold, and that with the improvements
is taxed nearly 100000, and the remainder,
including the oaks, now stands upon the val
uation books at $149, 300.
Is it profitable to the owners to hold such
property? AT the current rate of per cent.
the annual interest on the property at the
assessors valuation would be $1O,451, and
the tax at $25 per $1,000 would amount to
So, 732-a total of $14,1s3 per year. Now it
must be evident to those familiar with the
growth of the city that the receipts of the
Deering and Preble heirs combined for lands,
have not averaged $14,1S3 year the past
decade. These estates and nearly all the
landed proprietors in the city are forced to
sacrifice proportion of their principal to
obtain the equivalent of per cent. interest.
1t is also the experience of nearly all who
have dealt in real estate within the limits of
the city; and it is fact beyond dispute that
there are no Taxpayers in the city upon
whom taxation falls more heavily in propor-
ton to the returns than the propretors of
unoccupied land