Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-06-13
THE NEW ASSESSMENT.

THE NEW ASSESSMENT.
MI. Johnson's Estimate Of Values Hero
Compared with vaiuations i'm States.
To the Editor Of The Evening Star:
II the new assessment results in an equahza-
ton Of assessed values and consequently of
taxes 10 be paid by citizens it will prove great
gain. From what ! have seen Of it am in
clined to believe that It viii do SO, though in
some instances think the increase has been
too great but that can be remedied on appeal.
I cannot agree with Mr.. T. L. johnson in
his ideas Of what the property Of the District
oushs to be assesaed at, 70 set forth in his re-
PORT.
In that he says IL should be for the land alone
CAS-, 000, 600. Whether he includes in that the
S100, 900, 900 that he estimates the land in the
county at is not clear, though / think he does,
a. he refers In the first part Of the paragraph to
the value Of the land Sin the District, and which
would naturally mean the entire District The
unreasenableness Of any such valuation is best
shown by comparing 1t with that Of property
In the states, as given In census bulletin No.
1s2, just issued from the census bureau. June
4 1892
According to that only sixteen out Of the
forty-nine STATES and territories show an as
sessed valuation equal to what he says the land
alone in the District should be assessed at.
The other thirty -one states and territories are
each assessed ct considerably less than $685.
000, 900.
In tho nine north Atlantic states only four
have that amount; in the nine south Atlantic
but one; In the twelve north central states but
eight; in the eight south central states but two,
and In the eleven western states and territories
but one-California-equals 1t.
The total in these thirty-ons states and terri
tories is $5, Gas, 629, 5l6, average Of $780,
246, 11S-only about three-sevenths rs much as
he would make that Of the District.
This does not include Oklahoma, which was
not reported, and which, being the least Of all,
would mako the disparity still greater If in
cluded, though not materially changing the
result.
But that Is not all, for the total assessed
value In the states and territories includes not
only the land, but the personal property also.
and In ons OF these thirty-one It includes the
railroads also.
Again, the per capita average in the states
and territories Of assessed values Is given at
S394.O4, while In the District his figures would
make it 81 400, or almost four times much for
the land alone, and we include the improve
ments and personal property 1t would make the
disparity very much greater.
In several Of the states the law requires all
property to be assessed at its "true value"
which Of course means its full value, the same
as here. Take, for instance the states Of Mas
sachusetts and Illinois, which have such a law
and We hnd that the total assessed value in the
former is but about four times and that of Hi
nois considerably less than twice much az he
would make that of the land alone in the Dis
t1dct. Why, the value Of the property in Chi
cago alone is far more thap that of this District
emitting, as he does, all government property
here.
II is true that neither in those states nor any,
where In the world Is property assessed at its full
value Why, then, should it be here? Why
adopt here system that exists nowhere else2
What is to be gained by it2 1 confess cannot
see. II the object is to exploit a new theory
and to make of the District An experimental
garden in this, ~ it has been in so many
other matters, then can see Q reason for il,
otherwise not.
l fail to see what difference it makes, one
way or the other. We must raise certain
amount Of revenue to carry on District affairs,
and obviously it makes difference whether
we have a low rate of assessment and the pres
emit rate of taxation thereon or we double the
assessment values and reduce the rate Of tax
alton TO one-half the present rate--the result
will be precisely the same IN both cases SO far
as the amount Of revenue collected and the
amount Of tax paid by each individual is con-
cerned.
Nor can see how or any one will be ben
Gifted by taxing the land alone We must raise
certain amount, and what is taken off i'm
pro~ements must be added to the land. of
course. 1t would no doubt result in shifting
the burden Of taxation somewhat, and those Of
us who, like myself, own none but improved land
might be benefited somewhat by shifting a
small part Of our taxes to those who own unim-
proved land. 1t would beyond question have
tendency to reduce the value of land, but that
it would induce everybody to invest their means
In buildings, rs some seem to think, is absurd,
because the moment the supply exceeded the
demand they would not rent, and no man would
be 30 silly az to invest his means in buildings
for which there was no demand and which
dptnriOrata day nv day n his hands
As to taxing improved property according to
its rental value, that is 80 obviously just and
fair that imagine no one would oppose 1t.
Tint Is the English system, and is virtually
ever devised. But to say that a vacant lot
should be assessed at what the rental value
would be il improved BY the addition Of
! thousands Of dollars in buildings &C., is, 70
my mind, utterly absurd and unjust. Nor do
understand that Messrs. Williams and Warner
advocated any such plan as that. 1t Is argued
! by some that 1t does not seem Just that my
neighbor should hold a vacant lot for years,
| while its value Ia increased many fold by the
improvements which / and others make all
| around it; but In answer to that it must be re-
| membered that we are deriving an income all
the time from our improved property, while he
gets none from his: and that in proportion as
his grows in value Just in that proportion il his
| tax thereon increased. II, for reasons of pub
Nc policy, 1t should be decided that it Is desir-
able to discourage the holding of vacant land
| for speculation, It can be accomplished BY i'm
posing on it higher rate Of taxation than on
improved land. just as the law now imposes on
city property fifty per cent higher tax than on
| rural property.
Our great want Is an equalization Of assess-
ments and taxes, and in 30 far as the investigu-
ton helps to bring about that result, as think
it has or will, it will do good. 1t is and long
has been true, that residence property is as
sessed at o much higher rate in proportion than
business property. and infinitely higher than
syndicate or speculative property. 1t was to
remedy this that We sought to have perma-
ment board Of assessors. It is hardly to be
! supposed that their FIRST assessment will be per-
feet, but am confident it will be vastly better
than any We have had for years past. and that
II continued it will improve from year to year.
1t therefore seems to me that we should at
Least give the present plan thorough trial be-
fore going of on q wild goose chase after the
single tax OF any other untr;ed theory.
June 10, 80. W. c. DODGE.
T1usfEK,s SALE Of $4,000 feet of ground on