Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1890-08-30
THE RAILROADS COMPLAIN
or Clute's 4ssessmcnis.-Nany More
Protests.

Il Councilmen Lynn, Noble, Penn
n broke. Wolstenholm, karriclS, Pick
arI. Heath and Spafori were pres
e ent. The railway companies mRd'
= vigorous protests AMI lawyers Hank
ness and Wilkins denounced th'
unjust valuations.
Judge Hardness took the foo
first. and real the following STATE
ment:
The city council Of Salt Lake
City, sitting as board Of elualizr,
tion:
The Rio Grand Western raiIwa,
company complains of the assess
ment Of the lots and blocks name,
ia the annexed schedule and ssk.
an abatement Of the assessments
The system on which the assess
ments is made, A. Your petitionel
believes j. erfuheous, and Lads Il
unjust si:d oppressive results. The
ct. are assessed, the improvements
the track as another Improvement.
and the machinery separately. In
assessing the tots no deduction /.
made fus the right Of way which
should be part Of the mileage. All
these lots are held for Present OF
future Use in connection With the
whole line Of road. The COMPANY
cannot sell them aud no Che would
buy them, What they might be
worth If THE railroad is removed i
MT material, for 1t Is an impossible
l case. There must be a difference in
the conditions between property
held only for a special use and
which cannot he bought or sold. and
hence has no market value. aud
property which can be bought and
sold and put 10 any use the owner
may choose. The value by front
foot may he applicable to the latter
( kind Of property, Int such a system
o. vaiaatiJn should r5t Apply u
property which cannot be sold by
tae front loot, ami can only be sold
or stseG in connection by the whole.
road The valuation by mileage
should cover ali the road u-,--l Tor
night OF way, and such acct sSories
a. are necessary 20 operate the road.
ami aS 20 other property for shups.
etc., II should be taxed at what ID i
reasonably worth 10 the whole road.
II property in the vicinity raises I'm
! price, the owner Of railroad prop
eFty cannot get advantage Of i.
/ because il cannot seli.
/ Even If the assessment Is tight in
: theory, the valuation Is 30 per cent
{ too high. The schedule annexed
shows the county valuation Of the
same lots, which wa made AT S2T9. p
100, and staied 10y the l,0ard Of
I equalization 10 S259.lO1. The city
valuation on the same property i
$4,000, about - per cent. above
the county assessments. The COM
plny regards equity values too high,
ana ihat the city valuation should
, 1e reduced at least to that Of the
county. Respectfully submitted,
TIE RIO GBANpE WESTERN
RAILWAY Co.
Per Bennett. Marshall d Bradley.
Attorneys.
Attached 70 this statement was
schedule showing in detail what was
So ont in the statement.
Judge Hardness said that Clute's
msthDi Of assessing railroad prop
sTty was altogether wrong and un-
warranted. The statement read
was true, and lie suggested that, il
the board was not familiar with the
property, they should appoint 4 COM
mittee 10 investigate.
Mr. Williams followed next fer
the Union Pacific, and he was
armed with the following state
meuE
To Tee CFy CouRc1of SaY Lqlc Ci,y,
EJard Of Equalization:
G-ntlemeu.-Refrrring t. the val
uatiOns for city assessment for 1891
pll.eI on the following items Of
Union Pacific Oregon Short Line
O. Utah & Northern Railway pop
er,y, viz:
Block s. plat a. .............SIsq. 500
as miigs ,rack-.---......-...-.... $500
$50 and 5xlO, lot 5,hlOck G5,
plat 4, and l0xlI, lot B,
block -, plat \ .....-....... $3.50
Lots , 3, J. and ), block 81,
pat A.. 10000. ........... 5000
Lots /, :, and :, aud l. lX
$50, loi q, block So, plat \ 5000
These valuations, except on tract
!, are about 50 per cent greater than
the amounts placed on the property
by salt Lake County, and Il l. res-
peCtfulIy asked that the valuations
be reduced n follows:
On lands ia block s., 4, to So. Oll:
on lands in block IS, s. 10 $4,000:
on lands in block 9S, 4, TO S3l, 1909;
on lands in block 50, &, to $4,000.
We believe this request to be rel-
s0nabie, after considering the cir
cumslances, the comparisons and
the principles which we think should
govern in assessing property OF this
class.
We believe that ia assessing such
iepOt lands an allowance should lie
made for n reasonable right Of way
A. belonging with the track and
being assessed with il separately a.
a rate per mile. We believe it 10 he
fair in such cases TO allow \ differ
enc= OF at least 100 per cent in favor
Of the railway as against adjoining
business property, As railway prof.
eEty j. used for railway purposes
only. and the adjoining property is
Affected favOTlbly for business pur-
purposes in n greater proportion 10y
reason Of the location Of railway
tracks.
Attention is called 10 the fact that
about One-half the distance COW
cred by the ; miles Assessed at SlD,-
ull per mile i outside tine plated
limits Of the city. which districts
derive but little benefit from the
city tax. and in which the city valu-
atiOns are generally understood 10 be
VERY properly, We believed very
much lower than the county valua-
tiOus. Ten thousand dollars per
mile for track was the amount re-
turned 10y the company. but at that
time there was general confusion
concerning the Interpretation OF the
new law. etc, and m any valuations
at first placed on railroad property
have been decreased largely by the
various county boards Of egualiZa-
ton.
In view Of the above, and in con-
sideration Of the poor condition Of
the track on January l, 1850, and
the recons' ructiOn Of the track and
yards now under way (which will
make practically new road before
next year, We request a reduction
on track TO 5000 per mile, if the
distance is allowed 20 stand rs a.
present ASSESSED.
Very respectfully,
ALBERT WOODCOCk.
Tax Auditor.
=. L. WILLIAMS, Attorney.
Mr.. Williams said that from the
earliest times the tax gatherer had