The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1881-01-07
THE REASON FOR MUNICIPAL IMPEOU
MOSTLY.

MOSTLY,
II is \ fact, and lamentable fact, teo'
that nearly every city in this country Is in
state Of chronic mpecuniosty and is bsdgered
with debt and the just demands of creditors.
Here in Texas, we do not know Of an incor-
porated town or city that is not ia debt and
short Of funds. Houston ia in terrible con-
dition in this particular, and our own city,
while its debt is comparatively small, and ia
not burthensome to that degree 10 make il
difficult 10 meet interest as il accrues and also
to lay aside something for sinking fund,
yet the state of the city treasury 10 not such
as TO enable tho city to indulge to the extent
it ought to do, in street, sanitary aad other
improvements. Our streets ought to BIO
paved and we ought to have a thorough and
oticient system Of surface and underground
drainage, but the objections raised by many
persons is the lack Of money with which 10
pay for these needed improvements. The
following, which we clip from tie New Or
leans City Item, gives clue to the reason of
tho impecuniosity Of SO many cities "a
most important real estate sale has been con.
summatod. Mrs. Ellen Brooke, Of Boston,
represented by Mr.. Henry Shepherd, has
sold the batturo square in front of the Or
leans cotton press, bounded by Water, Front,
ThaliA and Terpsichore streets, to the New
Orleans & Texas Pacific railroad company,
represented by General G. NJ Dodge. This
transaction secures TO Now Orlean, beyond
question terminus of the great railroad at
locality most favorable to her commercial
Interests Tho great cotton presses the ship
and steamboat landings, and other railroa
freight depots are in close proximity to the
selected site, and thus will be saved time and
cost in handling tho great bulk of products
winch the new route is destined in,
ehtably TO bring to this port. The
purchase price for this square Of ground, |
we Learn, was Sl50000. A year ago Mr..
Shepherd refused 100000 for it. 1t ia rs
sessed on the tax rolls of 1878 as square 8 A
and 10 A for $4,000, $500 and $500,
total for both squares of $4,000. On the
rolls for this year and subsequent to the re-
ported bid of $4,000, the assessment was re-
dnced to $4,000, Sc, 800 and $500, total
OF $4,000. Now that the Item has made
public these facts, the authorities should
promptly correct the grave errors commit
ted, so much to the public detriment. When
tn road Is finished all the cotton presses and
much other property in the vicinity will bear
spretty stiff increase in valuation for taxing
purposes" Here wo see block of ground
valued at only $25, 900 when it is returned
for taxes to the city assessor, yet the agent
refuses to sell it for $4,000, aud actually
receives $4,000 in cash for it. In other
words, no renders It for taxes
a. one'siIth of his own yalua.
Ton OF the property. Is Now Oreai
alone in this matter of differentiation for
taxes? We fear not. We do not assert thai
property owners in Dallas, or in any other
city of this stste make false returns Of their
property, but if all property we're assessed
al what it would sell for, ut what the owners
demand when purchaser approaches, would
not the aggregate Of taxable property In
every city In the state be largely increased in
the figures OF value, and would not the rate
Of taxation be proportonately lessened? II
does not matter how much the citizen is |
taxed if he get valuo received for the taxes
hepays. The citizen of q city owning prop.
srty may complain at having to pay taxes on
thegrou1d that the streets in his neighbor.
hood are not worked, or because his portion
OF the city has no sidewalks, or no sewers or
no gas lights, in other words, because he does
not receive value for his taxes. Now, II ali
the property were rendered at its just valua-
ton, and sofliciency of money was yearly
received by said city to pave its streets, put
down sidewalks, construct sewers, light lis
streets at night and support police force
adequate to its proper protection and safety.
would not the tax payer get value received
for tho money paid out by him in taxes
What 10 the remedy for INTERPRETATION of
property whom it Is resorted to by the tax.
payerG How would o law do for tho an.
pointment of disinterestod board of an.
praiser' empowered to pass upon the
valuation given TO all the prop.
erly rendered, and when it was
put at too small figure TO raise
1t to its just valuation. or
compel the property owner to take in cash
from the city the price fixed by himself upon
his property We do not know that such
law would be fossible, that is constitutional
but ifso, would 1t not remedy the evil We 70.