Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-08-29

concerns with all the leuiency AMI
liberality they consistently can.
The county board Of equaliE gtiOn
cOncurred In this view and assessed
u in our net earnings only s9,001,
preferring + foster such Institutions
a ours 10 driving them Out Of exist
eRce. We ask that this bolrd take
similar action in all justice and
fairness, 80 that we may be allowed
to continue in business and coz
tribute our mite 10 the building up
Of our city and the increasing Of it,
taxable property.
Yours respectfully,
UrAH Loan AND BUILDING AssCs
CIATIOS.
BY J. BARSETT, President,
a. HANAUER, Jr-, Secretary.
Sarah F. Barton objected to
/ Clute's valuation Of her property on
the corner q sixth aud / streets.
The valuation last year was 30,
while this year il was :, 800.
W. II. n0ugall thought Clute's
valuation Of his property in plat
4, S55,71l, vas too high. The
county valuation on the same prop
erty was 81 800, and Clute's assess-
meut was an increase OF nearly 800
/ per cent over lsS9.i
Sfiles Williams owned lot q, In
block D, plat +, which Clute valued
at $500. Mr.. Williams thought
/ this was excessive.
Ellen Barton, Of the Eighteenth
| Ward, owned a lot on Is Street,
which was valuei at Sll,95O, as
| against 2,6S5 last year. This was
more than 400 per cent Increase, and
she objected 10 L..
samuel A. wOolley objected 10
I Clute's valuation Of So $50 on his
/ property, corner Fourth South and
fhird Fast, a excessive.
Amos Moollcy thought the ASSES
slr's valuation Of his property on
Third East Street, Si4ll, was too
high.
q. y. Neal owned a lot on First
/ West Street, which was taxed for
Si9.5l, AGAINST 81 - last year. He
thought this vas too much Of a
jump.
;. Mckay owned a lot on Eiev- I
enih Elst Street, which was valued /
At ;, 900. He considered this ex-
c-ssivc.
4. !. Vinegar Owned n lot in the /
Nineteenth Ward, near the WOODEN /
mills, which was valued at 500 1
rod. He thought this was more .
than Il was worth.
Il. b. Biiner owRcd l0Xl5 on the .
corner Of Thirl Fast Street aud I
Fourth South. This was valued I
last year at $3.50, as against $500 .
this year, while the county valued .
it At $1,000. He also owned lOX2O .
on Fourth West Street, which lac I
bought in December last for 5000. I
The valuation on this was 5000, as I
against $3.50 last year. Mr.. Bitner T.
said the property was not worth .
what Clute valued il at by long
ways
& Merkley, Of the Seventeenth .
Ward, objected 20 Clute's valuation .
Of S4J,5li, on Merkley's Row and I
other property in that vicinity. IL
was considerably more than the
property was worth.
Richard Smith owned n piece OF /
property Ia the Twentieth Wand .
which was valued last year at SllO0. I
since then he had sold a portion Of .
the lot, and vet the valuation this
year was $500.
4. j. divers lot on the corner Of 1
Second and | streets was valued at I
$3.50, which was three times the
valuation Of last year, and he con-
siderei IL excessive
Arthur Hubert purchased lot
ia block 50, plat b, in February last
for $500. Clute valued IL at 81 so,
and Mr.. Hubert thought this was
too high.
George Parry owned a small lot /,
on Fifth South Street, which was
not worth more than 81 900 at the
outside. The county assessor valued
it at SjO1, while Clute made II
- 900.
Hyrum GrOesbcck objects 10
Clute's valuation Of $40, 30 ON his
property on First South Street,
between Second and Third West,
l5xal n excessive. The valuation
last year on the same piece was
:, $50.
Joseph ;. GrOesbeck thought the
assessors valuation Of 5000 on
his property on Fourth South Street,
east Of Main, was excessive.
Josephine GrOesbeck thought that
Clute's valuation on her lot, ks, ON
First Wes. Street was too high
Gr0esbeck Bros. owned a lot east
OF the St Elmo, which was yaiue1
at $1,000. They thought this ex-
eessive, a. they had offered It for
sale at Sil, 900 and couldn't dispose
oft.
Mark Blazzlrd's lot on Fifth
South Street was valued at $40, 40.
Mr.. Blazzard thought this was high
er than the surrounding property /
was valued AT.
+. ID. Cliff represented part OF lots
and 5 in block 50, plat 4, that was
valued at Sjl,7O1, against .Sls,Oll
last year, which he considered
SIS, 600 too much. His property |
in block IS, plat 4, was valued At .
$3.50 per front foot, which was at
least $3.50 per foot too much. He
was also assessed on one foot more .
than he owned.
J.G.Kimball presented the follow
Ing statement:
We, the unuersigneu properly
owners on FIn-t North Street, re-
specially wish to cali your attention
to the gTOss injustice done Us by the
city assessor in placing such exec
sively aud extravagantly high valu- b
atiOns ON our property, said valu- .
atoms being about double the
amount the property woull bring II .
placed on tine market today. The va
iues were from 100 10 $50 per cent 4
higher than the prices fixed by the .
| county assessor, and the county as /
SCISSOR has advanced the value $50 /
per cent over last years valuation. 1
and we earnestly protest against .
| such injustice. Not only has our .
property been raised 10 an excessive /
value, tut il is valued higher than I
other property in that locality, and /
particularly the property on the /
north side os the street, which a
reference 70 the assessors plat book
will show, the north side OF said .
street being in some instances 80 /
per cent lower. Our property IL on ]
the south side Of First North Street, (
aud being on n hill, the lower side /
would certainly be worth from
SIS to - per cent less than the upper
side Of the street. We are willing
10 pay orr just and reason