The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1894-08-21
State Board of Taxation
Will Consider the Five
Per Cent. Increase
Tomorrow.
ASSESSOR DOLLARD's METHODS
If a Reduction Is Made Jersey
City's Rate Will Go Up
Significant Figures.

At the meeting of the State Board
of Taxation to be held in City Hall, Ho-
boken. tomorrow, there are likely to
be lively times. The object of the meet
ing is to hear Hoboken's protest against
the increase of per cent. on its ratables,
ordered by the County Board for the
Equalization of Taxes. The members OF
the latter board will attend the meeting
in a body, and testify to the members
of the State Board the condition of af-
fairs as found by them on personal in
spection. John E. Dollard, Hoboken's
assessor, WILL beyond doubt, be severe
ly condemned, but at the same time
there exists a fear in the minds of the
County Commissioners that the State
Board will take sides with Hoboken.
Hoboken officials who have gone over
the situation carefully, peculiarly enough.
fear that the State Board viii tack on
an additional per cent or two to that Of
the County Board. The power of the
State Board is so absolute in such mat
ters that every person interested is
guessing what the outcome Will be.
TROUBLE AHEAD.
A well known politician, in speaking
to me of the situation this morning, said:
case and knocks out the per cent. or
dered by the County Board, there will
be trouble ahead. Hobokens assess
ments are ridiculously and disgracefully
low Should the State Board knock out
the per cent. which has been added, it
would not surprise me if effort was
made this fall in the Legislature to
abolish the Board
Hoboken returned to the County Board
S23, so, $50 of rateables. The per cent.
added increases them ii $24, 49, 1873. A
glance at the rateables of the cities in
Hudson county since 1871 will show that
Hoboken's increase in valuations as COM
pared with the others has been slight.
In these twenty-three years only on three
occasions has anything been added to the
rateables returned by the assessor.
HOBOKEN'S RATABLES.
In 1871 Hoboken's ratables were $l4,-
s13 6OO 1872 600; 1873, $13 1876, 400; 1874,
SIS $50 800; 1875, s15, +4s 2OO 1876 s15,594 200:
1877, $l5 466, 800; 1875 $15 27S, ,573; 1879, Sl4.
$685. 800 1880, Sl490l, 800: 1881. $4S59 TAT; 1852.
SIS, ,1O4 100; 1883, ST, ,676 100; 1884, s16.066n;
1855, SIS 246 Sal: 1856, s16,74O 7O5; 1887, s17,-
los 94O 1855 S17 3S2 $50; 1892 S1S 727 OILS; 1890,
SlSS9S, i62; 1891, 81 OPS 260 1892, S22,2OS 1856;
1898, 81, 700, ,595; 1894, S24, 74s, 1913.
In 1878, the County Board added one
per cent. In 1889, per cent. was added.
William Utz was a member of the
County Board at that time He made 4
strong protest against the increase, and
to get even with Jersey City for placing
the per cent. on Hobolxen, offered a
resolution adding 10 per cent. to Jersey
City's already high ratables. His resolu-
ton was voted for by himself alone.
The last or third increase was ordered
this year.
The State Board last year heard a
complaint similar to Hobokens from
Freehold. in Monmouth county. The as
SCISSORS had returned $3.OS4,752. The Coun-
ty Board raised the ratables to $1,000 900.
Freehold at once declared that the in
crease had been made without a care
full, particular and thorough comparison
of the ratable duplicates having been
made
Hobol1en will make the same charge,
but the County Commissioners viii off,
set it by showing that not only was a
careful comparison made but that they
inspected each piece of property person.
ally and found instances of where As
SCISSOR Dollard had showed favoritisrn in
levying his assessmets. The State Board
knocked out Freehold's increase, and it
may do the same thing in the case of
Hobolsen. Which ever way the eontro-
versy ends. the local Tax Commissioners
will announce the tax rate next month.
If Hoboken's 3 per cent is lost, Jersey
City'S rate may go up a peg.