Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-08-27
HIGH ASSESSMENTS.
More Complaints About Clute's
Figures.

The City Council met as boar
Of equalization Tor the eighth tim,
last evening, and for the seconl
time there vas a quorum present
Those in attendance were Mayor
Scott, COlucilmen Lynn, Noble,
Pembroke, Etrrick, SpaforI, VOL,
stenhOlm, Armstrong, Heath snd
Pickard.
Mrs. c. C0ttle owned a lot in
block p, plat q, which Mr.. CIu,e
valued at SisJJ. There wasn't a
drop Of water ON the place, and she
thought il excessive.
Mrs. Mary \. Lyon owned a
piece q property in block l., plat
d, which the city assessor valued at
STsIl. This was about double the
county assessors valuation, and wa-
excessive.
Peter NlrCarIell owned a lot on
Fourth Wet. facing the Union Pa
cific track. The place wasn't worth
much because o. the switching going
on day aud night, aud the county
assessor valued it at $500. lie
thought this wa- pretty steep, ia,
when Clule raised Il 20 ss.7OO he
thought II wls time 10 get up and
kick.
Mrs. Annie snow objected 10 Mr..
Cluie'- valuation " i4t'uu her lot
IT, the Eighteenth Ward because IL
vas excessive.
Mn. Elua JghusJu's Dot In the
sImc waui was valued ais 500. This
Vas double what IL was last year
anu was TO high.
:. ". Hannibal owned a lot Ia
block O. plat B, which was valued
$500, aud the tax was five times
what Il s.a5 last year.
Mrs. Alice BuiterwOTth owne,i al!
u lot O., block q, plat 4, which
Cute valued al SiI..il. which vas
simply eStUrtirn. u Wa- not only
loo high. t'It IL Was Out % all pro
portion a. CumIaf.ri with tire 1--e---
rncuts on surrounding property.
NJ. =. Pack Protested against
'lute's valuation II : i.uHl on hi lot
ia ui1ck iui, Plat \. Tie assgs-- /
ueut was about IN per cent higher .
han last year, aud the county I.
,sS,.->0r's valuation on the same /
liece was Sl,5u.
II. Bgisacher made three COM I
iLiiut-. The fir>t was uu Clutv'- /.
'aluatiDn uf = Ion on 5NI ia block I
j., Plat b, Mr.. Brislrher haI .
.iiered this for sale for 81. lrl. am
he county ASSESSORS valuation wa
.uly ; i.uH. On another lut in block
g, plat Z. Cluis's valuation wa
.'Ifi, VnJcu was excessive. Ills
at wI- on the -. Elmo hotel prup-
NY. which was valued at -. rsI.
Tine valuation last year was 81. uIl. /.
nj the county as-eS,yr', valuation
hi- year Wa - slI.
james SIbine projected against
iutr's valuation 81 - So uu hi
q IN block ~, plat d.
:. M.B1yl thought Clutu'> valua-
lon 10 i.u7l on 4 Dot iu block -. l
lat &. ysls r~crssive. TIE. county I
SCISSORS valuation CA the same
rppcriy Wa S3,5Ip.
Ehcr Case represented twelve and
half rIri- on sixth East street.
shirh Wa valued 10y Clut,. Il
. ITj Ter nj. while the county as
c--BT'- valuation was son Ter ry.i.
ui even tbi- was high, h-,'ausc iu
November last lac bought three rUdS
here Tor s,si1 a Tod. Mr.. Clut. came
. the conclusion thai there wa an
rr0r ia assessing.
~. g.. wuiluey represented that
e. oTuyi iUl ~ tlurk 3, Fiat I . I
-hich was valued at SIs5I. This
-a~ uoy only flr a'uvc the county
iut was about - Ter
-ut higher than the adjoining
r1IeTty.
Mary {. Whitney objected To
.u.r'- valuations % SlG IrI on lot
Iu H!urS ~s, plat \. This was
Way above t'lr county valuation
nj Wur- iirsu the property would
ring 81 >lly.
:. n. Nuer'Ich hal a whole ii>t
ili Il Protests. ClIte'> valuation II
Ig property Uf Auyrllrh * Brus.
~ ~. -ji, - against Ssil.ujY iy
De- county 5--t--ur. last year the {
rs valuation on the Imr property e
a. S.5I.uil. aud Mr.. Nugriuyh ,
iEg,-;y,i that Mr.. Chute had hrlt,T @
l ui- jumping gradually iu-;y1.i 90 r
u NJ once. lie considered the Q
tiuaiiln Un ssvvIl pieces ~ lrlI.- .
~ rs excessive.
Mr.. Au.Tl-'ch als1 represented ,.
. Books, who's IrI,yTiy wa~
IiI,-I 10 aHYIt SliIulI. while the
Iuty ASSESSOR male 10 >l-s.utI.
be- city valuation on this same
-Hperiy last year wa, 81 .uu. amt
r.. Au-T.Iyh thought such jumTs
III tendency o. makes taxpayers
Iir assume a ieryyu4icGilr psi
J. &. Graham. representing the ;
tate uf ". ~. u. Peek, stated that :
r. CFI,r'- valuation on 4 lot Tx
I, in block -, ylir =, was Sl>,uI.
e. considered this a little too 81
gh. q
Or-Du AunD,i'- property on Thirt 5
III street. between First and Srt- Q
Ii South. was as-,--t.i 40 Sll1.II Q
- frlut foot. ilir total valuation :
.iuE over -i.p1. The county A.
-~HT'~ valuation ou the same prop -,
iy was about SlP,u'', a difference u
about S>pn. I
Edward Martin owned piece 81 \
al on Thiui south, which Ice =
IEht in January last Tor $500.
iI il wUuldu't bring that much
"a. Mr.. Martin thought this was e.
.Hut SlnAI too much.
This Clu-,l tine performance and
. adjournment was taken until this g,
cuing at $.
The following persons asked o. !,
we their taxes rvIEiitUi on ac-
ant of their inability IN pay: n
=. Jam,- whrucr.H. Tv,utg-Gr-s 4
b. %. MrkgunsT, 2 DEruIH vs. rli-.. Dos 90 y
- 4. o.. iiHr HTun. Itr,uIrHII Mari. $3.50 Y
.. J. SO Irastrvn, Twenty ir-t
= lEHaas=s 1000 aasaa.saaHH So. 1
-- Alice Bailey. Eleventh ward SOD ;
Sd. .. l. Killer, rrurh WHrFi.......-.. .E5 a
e.. Ahalr F=Ents. El-alh vs. arIi...-. % 81 d
7hlrt Provost. seventh IS ard. tFH Q
uvTi Wu-hI, Sixteenth Wari-....-.- So
TbriVin., Rus;p.ss A.,