The Meeker herald. [volume] (Meeker, Colo.) 1885-current, 1892-12-31
IN ,t,, body that no system Of taxa

building operations or other improve
meuts, as recommended by the royal
commission on the housing OF the work
ing classes" An interesting debate
followed, but the resolution was re-
ferred to the town holdings committee.
where 1t was pigeon.hole.
In the following year, 1887. THE
united committee for the taxation OF
ground values" which now issues tho
campaign address quoted above, was
formed; and in the same year it issued
a leaflet to which the name of the first
president, Lord Hobhouse, was sub
scribed, and in which the following
statements were made:
That buildings, and not land, are
liable for taxation is evident from the
fact that when the buildings are remov-
ed, or destroyed by fire, taxation
ceases, although grount rent continues
to be paid to the owner.
Land can not be lessened in quantity
by taxation, but building is restricted
thereby.
The evils of overcrowding, the stag
nation of trade, and the general want
of profitable employment are thus d.
rectlN " SihE ""NA
unjust effect of the exemption of land
from taxation, which causes heavy
burdens to fall upon buildings.
The object of the united committee is
to substitute the taxation of land for
the taxation of buildings. Land should
be taxed according to its value.
ground rent may represent the whole
or only part of the value. The actual
value should be taxed whether the
whole remains with the landlord or in
part belongs to the occupier.
At that time the value of the land in
the Metropolitan area of London was
Giis, 900 equal to about 5000, 600, 0Oo).
while the value of buildings was only
eal2, 600, 900 ,about sl,06O, 900, OOD), and
yet the owners of land paid only $780,
600 (sa. 500, ooo). inclusive of income tax.
while the occupiers of buildings paid
Ct, 900, 600 (s35. 600, O00l.
The effect of the agitation of the
united committee was felt at the cleo
ton for members of the present London
county council, several who were more
or less radical single tax men being
elected. Among these were William
Saunders, Lord Monkswell and Lord
Hobhouse, Upon the organization of
the council committee on land valua-
ton was appointed which soon disposed
of the frivolous objection, so often
heard, that the value of land can not be
distinguished from the value of i'm
provements. Some of the most expert
enccd real estate valuers of London
were examined, and from them it was
l., bot ~ THAR JSnnl nructlce
in valuing property to separate land
from buildings, even where statement
OF the values separately was not re-
quircd; and as II result OF its invcstiga-
ton, the committee reported that the
values OF land could be distinguished
from those of improvements. for pur-
poses of taxation, without difficulty or
increased expense. The same commit
tee also took into consideration the
effect on overcrowdng OF rating vacant
land, and reported that the chief cause
of overcrowding is the DEAFNESS OF
building land. which would be modified
II it were taxed according to its selling
value instead of according to its actual
income: and 1t recommended q detailed
plan of bringing "ali land, irrespective
o. buildings and improvements, into
the rate books for assessment under n
separate valuation"
When this report came into the coun-
ell it was opposed by the landlord in
tercst on technical grounds, and an APP
parcntly innocent motion to defer Its
consideration until the report on the
same subject of the local government
taxation committee should be consid-
cred. was carried. But that motion
was not so innocent as it appeared. 1t
placed the question under the control
of the local government committee,
which kept it in a state of suspension
for more than two years.
That committee finally made long
straddling report however, concluding
with 4 recommendation that the coun-
ell accept the report as an exposition OF
many questions rclatin & TO local taxa
ton in London, and as propounding
principles of reform worthy of the at
tcntion OF parliament On the pnrt OF
the advocates of ground value taxation
in the council an amendment was offer
ed, THAT the council is of opinion
that the existing system of local taxa
ton in tho metropolis undnly favors
owners at the expense of occupicrs, and
that it is urgently necessary that this
| in iusticc should be rcdrcsscd." Tho
amendment was carried by the decisive
vote OF 50 to II.
A motion that in rcdressing the in
| justice it should be subject to equit-
able arrangement as regards existing
contracts" was lost A further motion
to give landowners direct representa-
ton adequate to the immediate inter-
est in local expenditure which they
will acquirc"-in other words, to in
crease the voting power Of landlords in
proportion to the increase of their land
| value taxation-wls also lost, the vote
being 90 for the motion to As against it
At this stage the question now rests,
and it will rest there until after the
election.
1t must be remembered that the coun-
ty council has no power to establish
methods of taxation. 1t can only rec.
ommcnd TO parliament. But II the
county council candidates of the united
committee are returned at the ap-
preaching election. the next parliament
will be officially advised by the county
council to authorize the adoption of the
single tax for London; and il, at the
parliamentary elections now SO near.
the liberals succeed, London will soon
inauguratc the single tax for all pur-
poses of local improvement.
Alien Landlords.