Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1894-06-15
CHURCH PROPERTY TAXATION.


The Richmond Dispatch contendea that
church property should not be taxed be-
cause church buildings as long as they are
used as churches, have s'no selling value. y
The VINDIcAToR.n reply showed that the
city of Richmond had ascertained the
C'sselling value" of the First Presbyterian
church there While it was still used as a
church and bought it. The Dispatch has
reioinder in which it says:
'The moment the land occupied by that
church was restored to the list of taxable
property it resumed its selling value. But
suppose that whilst it was still a church it
had been offered for sale upon condition that
it was to continue to be used as a church,
what in that case would have been its selling
value? Who would have bought it with such
an incumbrance upon it? And if. in addition
to the obligation to keep the church up, it
had been stipulated that its owners were to
pay taxes upon it, that church would have
deemed itself poor indeed. 1t was because
in buying the church the city bought the
right to tear it down and substitute for it a
new City Hall that the lot acquired selling
value. That same lot of land is now covered
by that new City Hall. What would any
body give for that lot upon condition that it
was to continue to be occupied by city hall?
Not one dime.''
The land occupied by the church had, as
the sale showed, selling uGzue, before it
was restored to the list of taxable property
and had therefore taGGble gGIne. We
think our contemporary ought to have con-
ce1ed that much before taking it's next
step in it's contention. Its next step is
that it had no selling value because if it
were stipulated in the negotiation that a
building should he always used as a church
10 sale would be possible. The same argu-
ment applies to theatres, public halls,
hotels-any building. Who wonld bay a
theatre in Richmond with the stipulation
that it was to be kept up as. theatre?
Who would buy hotel-any property en-
similar conditions? What would have be-
come of the man who bought the old Union
Hotel, corner of Main and 18th Street,
with the stipulation that it was to be kept
up as hotel with the city long since grown
away from it? No building Of any sort
would have selling value under such con-
ditions. 1t was not because the city bought
the right to ''tear it down" THAT the First
Presbyterian church acquired selling
value. The city could as easily have
bought it for the purpose Of fitting the
building up for public offices.
Our good friend of the Dispatch cannot,
we think, with all its conceded ability. es-
tablish the contention that churches ought
not to be taxed because they have noselling
value, without at the same time establish
ing that no property has a selling value.
But, as we have said before, the church
buildings. used as places of worship, are
but very small part of the church hold
ings. Church corporations in this day in
vest for profit in real estate and hold mil
lions of dollars worth Of it which escapes
taxation. Some of the wealthy and great
church corporations are in the real estate
business, SO to speak. and should pay their
taxes like other citizens.