Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-08-18
TAXES AND THE COUNTY BOARD.

ais On AlE HiA9AlAtI. OF the CITY
people. This Is owing to the enor.
nous values placed upon their real
estate.
Attorneys have been consulted As
to the authority Of theCounty Court.
sitting as a Beard Of Equalization
under the statue. As might
lie expected, different lawyers
have different o. inions Oh
the same point. Some claim
that the B1ari car reduce the
valuation Of the Assessor so as 10
affect the whole assessment, Others
deny this and say that while the
Board can equalize individual a.
sessments 50 Is to put the valuations
on an equal cash basis, it cannot
lower or raise the whole valuation.
The facts are, that the County
Court placed the rate 81 taxation at
two mills on the dollar, and that the
Assessor placed the property he A.
sessed al very high valuation,
acting, a. he claims, under the law
which requires il TO he pat Al its
cash value. The results are. that a
very much larger sum will accrue
hecouniy than il needed for pur-
Ioses Of present revenue, and that
the taxpayers generally feel that
uEey are being nesdlessly oppressed.
We have previously discussed the
question Of what is a cash vaIua-
tioR''and shown from thestatute thai
Il dots not mean an inflated price,
caused 10y a .'bOom' or by specuIa-
lions In real estate that give it
Temporary imitation, but that it
means, As specifically defined, that
price al which il would he taken by 4 |
creditor in payment Of q just debt. |
Bui it i not % much Use 10 enter
now into dispute on this point be-
cluse the assessment has been made ]
and the tax notices have been
served.
The vital question is, what relief |
can Doe alJrieI 10 the OverJurdeRei |
tsNpaygrs Ofthis city: /; is arsuei /
hy legal Oijector TO the wholesale
reiuctiOn proposed, whose opinion
Will bs found in another column.
That the fact that more revenue
viii be raised than Is needed.
''Ioes not confer jurisdiction uuon
the County Board TO inquire into
that matter and lover the entire
assessment roll to NEE. that emer-
sency.7
We DO not supposeany thoughtful
person who las read the revenue
law viii contend thai an s'enersen-
cy'' couiers jurisdiction Of any
kinL. Il the law doe, not confer
Jurisdiction the jurisdiction does
u5t exist. The law maLas tle q
Cou y Court a BJard Of EJualiza-
UJn, with power to determine ali
COMPLAINTS made in regard 10 the
assessed value II any property, ami !.
may change and correct any vaiua-
ton, either 10y adding to OF deduct
ing irom.v
To an ordinary minl this look, Z
like ample jurisdiction over the ,
entire case. Il j. complained that 81
the assessment throughout the city I
Is too high; that property has been :
placed al too great a valuation when
compared with former prices and
also with property in this county
outside Of the city. Now, II the
Board u Equalization recognize,
the complaint As valid, and it has
power TO ''de;ermlne al complaints ,
maae' on this subject, and can add ,
II or deduct from, u.y valuation.
why can the Board not .'change q
aud correct al Valuations
We take the position tina. III.
language OF the law is amaIe 10 cover
the whole ground Of complaiyt
Not because OF the excess Of reve-
nue, particularly. That is a sid. :
issue, though it springs from the {
main question. But because ia.
valuation Is excessive ami therefor Z
may be changed and cOrrertei.,,
But suppose it l. granted. for the :
sake Of argument, that a wbolesaI,. C
reduction Of the assessment mil il
would he beyond the scoue OF tb. Il
towers vested in the Board Of y
Equalization. There Is another ..
way 10 meet this difficulty. and Ia =
equiably determine this c5mplsiat :
Let a comparison be- made between II
the valuations on property within HI
the city limits ami property outside Il
the city limits, and il will be found
We think, that the DISCREPANCY +. .,
to- great The difference is much =,
wider than in former years. Then. n,
under the eIualiz:n- POWERS OF the L,
Board, viewing them even in the q.
narrow sense Of The legal opinion IN
Published in another part Of This 80
paper. It stIl has authority 10 r,
take irom'' this exc -Ssive valua- m
ton AM make it more egual with IA
=s-c-smen.s, the difference. m
n values Of property within and ma
without the city limits being Of vi
'oaTse taken into Consideration. r.,
We believe the board can r,-Juc,. ~,
he entire city valuations on ;bi. ~
'rinciple, and lowe such valuati,u. n,
outside the cry rs they find to be vi
Scs ssiveald not exceed by one iota III.
ne powers conferred upon /, by
tatute.
Aud, We would ak, seeing that
his Is only just TO the taxplver- !
nd ths excessive revenue in ala
respect is not required. who i mt
DING % figh. against this At me
I 'qlalizttion, either in tn. III
'urts or Otherwise Suppose 81 81
'wye-s entertain diverse views n an,
the Ilject. Let them ar,ue. and vic
lie authorities, AMI indulge in legal for
intentions, Glore or less pertinent ~. gn.
THIS pecaiiar case. But Ie. the chr
i7i do justice to the taxpayers. sta,
nj there viii be no trouh!s over tli,. mel
later that neeI give it, members a los
i'ment's uneasiness.
me people o. Salt Lake City com
am That their property has been .
- mighty assessed. The R,arI
'-nl' 10 have conceded this, b. it, nav
'A'-mplation Of n general rsIuc- On
N. Ii there he an equalization. 9 IA,
le", or city values with value. ,yt. this
de the city limits-.h. relative ing
.tull dffr.rs,c. aml