The record-union., 1891-09-09
THE INCREASE IN SAN FRAN
CISCO'S ASSESSMENT.

IdlSeu VIC aSS6SSueilG Tolls IN eleven
counties. The chief advances are in San
Francisco, where SOS, sos, ,559 is added, and
Los Angeles, where the increase is $l3,-
2Ol,Sl3. With regard to this last, and the
other lesser cases, we are not now deal
ing. The raise in the case of San Fran
cisco is, however, to be now and at once
condemned as an act of injustice.
The testimony was clear before the
board that San Francisco has not been
enjoying an unusual advance in prices of
realty; that while fancy figures here and
there were quoted, as a rule there has
been no unusual forward movement in
prices. The executive officers of the
metropolis under oath laid before the
board the facts regarding San Francisco,
showing that her real estate values were
not placed upon the assessment roll
below the truth when the whole field of
assessment was taken into considerations
that in the matter Of stocks of goods, San
Francisco is carrying lighter this
year than ever before, and that
stocks have indeed been reduced
in very many cases to little more
than samples. He testified to his belief
after examination that San Francisco
was keeping pace with other portions of
the State in business matters ami realty
values. In fact, the Mayor held that the
assessment roll of San Francisco was
already too high. That the advance
its totals showed was $40, ,0O0, 900 increase,
and that this was really about 80 per cent.
of the total natural increase of the assess
ment roll of the State, while San Fran
cisco has but one-fifth of the population.
False values, it was shown before the
board, had prevailed largely in handling
real property in San Francisco, and that
these values could not be taken as any
proper basis for equalizing. Many wit
nesses from official departments of the
metropolis under oath justified the
assessment roll as it stood, and gave en-
phatic reasons for it. 1t is very true that
specific cases of improper valuations
were shown to these gentlemen, and that
they could not explain them except to
say what is true, that in so large a city
such instances do occur, and that in
every assessment roll can be found cases
in which proper ratings have failed.
Real estate agents of long standing and
the experience of many years came be-
fore the board and under oath declared
that the assessment roll was a fair total
of values as a whole, and not below lust
valuation, and that it was as nearly cor
rect as it could be made
1t was by these and other witnesses
shown, also, that increase by order of the
board must work great hardship upon
those whose assessments are full high
enough. To reach those individual cases
possibly too low, an advance has to be
made along the whole line, since the
board cannot correct individual assess
ments; and, while this is the law, there
was not, in the case of San Francisco, a
sufficient showing of irregularity to JUS
tify so severe a penalty.
We do not attach much importance to
the argument advanced that, as the board
cannot raise individual assessments di-
rectly, it cannot do so by indirection-
that is, by threat of general increase to
compel local boards TO raise individual
assessments that are deemed too Iow-for
evidently it is the inherent power of the
board to raise the totals of rolls in order
TO compel local equalization. But this
must be done only when it is clear that
the county is not bearing its due share of
the burdens of government, and we sub
init that such a showing has not been
made in the case of San Francisco.
Unquestonably much personal prop
erty escapes taxation, and the RECORD
UNION long since pointed out this fact
and has commented at length upon it.
But in the case of San Francisco as in
other parts, it is not to be forgotten that
much of this escape is legitimate It is
converted into nOn-taxable representa-
tives; it is spirited out OF the State on the
eve of the assessment date, and it is by
other devices hidden. But should for
that reason the vast majority of the values
that do not escape, and that are fairly
rated, be raised in the assessment valua-
ton for taxation. and be burdened with
the loss felt by reason of the escape of
personally?
One charge against San Francisco ap-
pears to have been arbitrary assessments
were too numerous, and that the whip of
the law should have been applied to en-
force the making of Statements" But
if that is admitted, by what principle of
justice can it be maintained that it is
right to punish those who did make
Statements" and disclose their property
because of the delinquency of the few?
Heavy taxation is at any time and un-
der any circumstances bad enough, the
source of trouble enough, and of dissatis-
faction that is unsettling; but when it is
accompanied by 1agrant injustice, it be-
comes almost undesirable. That the State
Board of Equalization has placed San
Francisco in this condition is not capable
of contradiction.
ADMISSION DAY.
4 ., g, T,t 4