The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-08-20

com plant OF various property owners In
Salt Lake city, we feel that the relief
prayed for IN said petition is clearly
within your powers to grant under the
provision of section OPT, Compiled Laws
of Utah, 1888, and section 4, page "a, Laws
of Utah of 1892.
These sections give you power ITO de-
termine all com plaints made in regard to
the assessed value of any property, -
and ssto change and correctan valuation
either by adding thereto or deducting
therefrom. -
These are the powers given to you as a
board of equalization over county and
territorial taxes, and the same powers are
given to you over city taxes by section 4,
page "a, Laws of Utah, 1892.
While there may be some question as to
your power to increase or lower the
assessment of the whole county, there
can be no possible question of your right
to raise or lower the assessment OF any
particular district or city within the
county in order to equaliZe the assessment
with the various other districts in the
same county. In discussing the question
of the powers of boards of equalization,
''Cooley on Taxation;" the best authority
on the subject says:
"Where statutory board is provided
for, which is to review the work OF the
assessors, the purpose may be either to
examine individual assessments with a
view to the correction of errors or inc
qualities, or to examine the assessments
as a whole, with view to determine
whether they are relatively equal as be-
tween different parts of district
within which tax IS to be
laid, and if not to make them so
by increasing those which are too low or
diminishing those which are too high.
This process is called equalization, and IS
resorted to in order to make the valuation
OF counties proportionate when state
tax is to be levied, and those of townships
and cities proportionate when county
tax is to be levied.''
The statutes of this territory above
quoted have given to you as board OF
equalization the power to correct errors
and inequalities, and also to "equalize
the assessment roll of the whole county"
Section 4, page "a, laws OF Utah, 1882,
contains the following:
1.-THE county court of each county as
board of equalization shall equaliZe the
assessment roll of the whole county, In
Guiding the assessment for general taxes
OF cities of the first or second class situ-
ated in the county, - etc.
stThe equalization of assessments has
Tor It's general purpose to bring the as
sessment of different parts of taxing
district to the same relative standard, so
that no one of the parts may be compelled
to pay disproportionate part of the
taxes. This is not done by changing in
dividual assessments, but by fixing the
aggregate sums for the several districts at
what in the opinion of the board they
should be. so that general taxes may be
levied according to this determination
| instead OF on the assessor footings. In
raising or reducing the assessment of a
district it is sufficient for the board to
designate percentage of increase or re-
duction.'
Cooley on Taxation, page 422.
Wells VS.. State Board, Sc Cal. 1874.
Case VS.. Dean, Is Michigan II.
so New York GOA, 81 New York $40.
| Your action as Board of Equalization
in examining individual assessments
with a view to the correction of errors
and inequalities is usually based upon
individual complaints. Your authority
to equaliZe the assessment with a view tc
making the assessments OF various dis
tricts or cities of a county relatively equal
may be exercised upon your own volItion
or upon the complaint of one or more
property owners of a particular city OF
district. Where large number of people
are interested in common in obtaining
relief complaint of one or more in be-
| half of themselves and others similarly
situated is sufficient for all.
Section 8, 1874 Compiled Laws of Utah,
1888, IS Cal. 1870.
14Cal. 531, Barb 1862, 1O1 U. S. 21o, II
Colo. 112.
Having considered the law upon this
subject, we will respectfully call your at
! tention to the facts alleged in this com
plant. 1t will be conceded that property
values increased very rapidly in Salt Lake
city between the years 1885 and 1890 and
that the assessors with due diligence
raised the assessments upon real property
in this city in a corresponding ratio.
! We must also concede, perhaps reluct-
antly, that the decrease in real estate
values since 1890 has been very nearly as
rapid as the former increase, and that we
are now, as far as the real value of real es.
tate is concerned, in about the
position that we were in 1885. Our
county assessor, however, has failed to
follow the decline in values with the same
zeal that he did the increase, and has
therefore left the values upon his assess
ment roll practically the same as they
were in 1889 and 1890.
We are of the opinion that it will BIZ
unnecessary to offer this board any EVIL
dence in proof of our assertion that rea
estate values have taken a very decided
slump since 1890. We believe The per-
sonai experience of each member of this
DOarQ mas DeeD sucn InaC ne IS Iully con
WINGED of this fact.
AS cited above Cooley says, SIN decid-
ing questions brought before them the
members of board may act on their owl
knowledge in which position he is sus.
tanned by
Tweed VS.. Metcalf, Michigan, $40.
Bellinger VS.. Grey, 81 New York, 610.
IS ILL.,, 535; So Mo-. 37S; So N. j., 425
as already cited; So CAL, 1874; the same
iauthor also says boards of equalization
care commonly composed of popular
representatives and they act upon theil
own Judgment of what is equal and just
In which position he is sustained by
Wells VS.. State Board, 56 CAL, 1874.
In considering this complaint, we beg tt
remind your honorable body that you arc
confronted by a condition and not {
theory, and in disposing of the question
we hope you will be guided by the condi
tions as they now exist and not by theo-
ries. Respectfully submitted,
WHITTEMoRE & WAITE,
Attys. for Complainants.
ABLE ARGUMENTS.
Both Mr.. Waite and Mr.. Whittemors
made able arguments in support of thei
proposition, the whole matter being
briefly outlined in the following brief: