Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1884-02-16
Aancaster .Antciligfnrcr.
SATURDAY EVENING. FEB, 10. 1884,
Some Information.

acre Of land on South Queen street, ad-
Joining the Woodward Hill cemetery
OF which Il says he has sold part at
$1,000 per acre and values the remainder
at $4,000 per acre. As the Examiner Is
evidently sadly ignorant upon the mat
ters relating to city assessments, which
it has lately undertaken to discuss,
IL gives US pleasure to instruct it.
1t is in error, in the first place, in its
statement as to the sale at $1,000, and
valuation at 81, 900 Of the land assessed
at $500 per acre, to which it refers But
that Is an error not OF any conse'
quence to the point 1t seeks to make That
the senior editor of the INTELLrGEN.
Ger owns land which Is worth consider
ably more than its assessment. That is
q fact. 1t consists OF several acres OF
unimproved land within the city limits,
used for farming purposes for the hun
dred years il has been in the owners fam
lily, and yielding light revenue. Yet
should it be cut up In city lots it could
probably be sold at several thousand
dollars per acre. The question as to the
proper rate of assessment for this land
is as to whether 1t should be valued as
though it was improved, which 1t is not !;
or as though it was divided into city lots,
which It is not or as farm land, which
it Is. The assessor seems to have com
promised the matter by assessing 1t at
the value OF cheap city lots for certain.
ly 1t is not worth $500 per acre as farm
land. His assessment has been made
upon his own Judgment, uniniluenced by
any request or solicitation of the owner,
in whose employ he is as pressman OF the
INTELLIGENCER; and the assessment is
the same now that it has been for many
years and Is the same for city as for
county purposes.
And now let US give the Examine,
some information as TO Mr.. Evans farm
land in the outskirts of the city, which
is assessed at sl94 per acre for county
purposes and at one half of that sum for
city purposes. The same rule Of taxa
tion governs 1t that governs Mr. Stein
mans land, and yet it is assessed at less
than one fourth the sum by the county
aud at less than one eighth by the city
Population is advancing towards 1t and
has spread beyond II and no cemetery
lies adjacent to it to bar the opening
through it OF city streets. Il is not
worth as much for farming land per
acre as Mr.. Steinman's, because it does
not lie so nicely and part Of it along the
creek is rough. Nor is ii worth as much
per acre for city lots for like reason
and because greater percentage Of Mr..
Steiuman's land lies along main
avenue. The city lights, however, illu-
inmate Mr.. Evans approach to his farm
house, and the city water is ready for
him whenever he wants it. The fire de
partment is at his service, and has
already been called out on it and Mr..
Evans land is valued even for county
purposes at less than its value as farm
land.
But its assessment, at whatever rate,
would not be fair matter of criticism
against him, IL it had been made with
out his procurement. No citizen is
bound to correct an assessors judgment
when be values his property too low.
Such excessive degree OF virtue Is not eX.
pected of him and should he be running
for councilman would not be just
reason for defeating his aspirations.
But Mr.. Evans not only secured the
low city valuation Of his property by
his own solicitation, but he did it by his
own vote and influence as chairman of
the finance committee of councils. The
Examiner has not stated the truth when
it declared that the reduction from the
county valuation was made by the
finance committee in 1881 and 1852, when
the committee was Democratic and Mr..
Zecher was chairman. The reduction
of the city below the county assessment
on Mr.. Evans land was made long be
fore 1880, and when Mr.. Evans wa
chairman of the finance committee
and it was done at his request.
Tie matter started by the assessor
asking an eXoneIation of a part uf the cit,
lax upon the farm opposite WOODWARD
cemetery, across the creek, the bridg
over which had just been damaged
That was a just abatement, rs the farm
being cut off by the creek from the city
had no advantage whatever from it
either of light, water, fire apparatus
police, or possibility Of building lots
Mr.. Evans took occasion to MAINTAIN
that his property was on like footing
and in the scramble for abatement O
assessment ahalf dozen property holders
with friends at hand, secured an abate
ment of one thirdof the city tax, whicl
was afterwards increased to One.half
but none of them save Mr.. Evans was o
the finance committee which made tn
abatement. He was the only man VIII
was judge and Juror in this case agains
the city, which was his client.
That Is what We object to. That
the reason why we say Mr.. Evans shouI
not be returned to the select council
Wewant men there who, when they 81
personally interested in any matter, wi
abstain from voting on it. That Is Il
legislative rule and those who do not obt
1t are not fit to be legislators. Mr.. Eyal
Is very respectable, intelligent ar
good citizen, for whom we have his
esteem, and whose services to the ci
have been valuable because of the zei
energy and sagacity which he h