The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-31
TRYING TO SHIFT TAXES.
A Decision Found That May
Mean a Big Change in
the Levy.
TEST CASE BEING PREPARED.
Single-Taxers Hope to Force Prop
erty-OWners to Pay More
Money.

The single tax advocates are hard at
work on test case which, if successful, in
all likelihood will force the real estate
owners of the City to contribute something
like 81 ,O0O, 900 more than usual to the mu-
nicipal treasury.
In nutshell, the real estate owners pay
county taxes on the levy made by the
Board of Supervisors. The State Board of
Equalization almost always raises this levy
for State purposes. But the real estate
owners never pay any attention to this
raise when paying their county taxes.
The single-taxers claim to have found a
de cision of the Supreme Court which holds
that the rate fixed by the State Board of
Equalization holds for both State and
county purposes. If this proves to be cor
rect real estate owners will have to pay the
State rate on their county taxes. Last
year the State Board raised the San Fran
cisco County rate Is per cent. That means
about 81 100000
The single takers intend to wait until
the State Board of Equalization has fixed
the State rate, which it is now engaged in
doing; then they will file a writ to compel
the Tax Collector to gather whatever in
creased rate the State Board sets. All
this is in line with the life work of the
single-taXers, for the move forces the in
creased taxation onto the real estate
owners, and that is just where single
takers aim to have the burden OF taxation
fall.
The figures for the last fonr years show
that the difference between State and
county taxes as set by the respective
boards represents quite handsome sum.
In 1891 the Assessors valuation on county
property was $311, 566, 079. The State
Board of Equalization raised this to $685.
o26,077. In 1892 the Assessors figures
them to $412,047, 076. In 1898 there was no
increase. In 1894 the figures were raised
from 1925 10S, 1893 to 1912, 765, 543, an increase
of nearly $50, 100000. This year the
Assessors figures were 1927 ,802, 107. The
Board of Supervisors fixed the rate upon
this valuation at $1.5371.
Under the old system real estate owners
would pay this rate for county purposes
irrespective of any raise the State Board of
Equalization should levy for State pur-
poses. Right there is where the single
takers propose to step in and try to make
them pay the State rate in both instances
Nearly all people who have no real estate
and who pay taxes on personal property
will escape this raise, if there is any raise
this year. The chances are that they will
have paid their taxes before the test suit is
brought.
Mayor Sutro got an inkling of what the
single-taxers are about and set his lawyers
to work on the matter. They are now &C
lively looking up all the points involved.
Mayor Sutro is doublv interested, for not
only will he be called upon to act in his
official capacity, but he owns great deal
of land in the county. AT the time of the
Midwinter Fair it was stated at a meeting
of the Board of Supervisors that he held
title to nearly one-tenth of the land in the
county. Most of it is located about the
Golden Gate Park and the sandhills
bordering the ocean.
The suit on which the single-taxers
will base their contest before the Supreme
Court is entitled E. J. Baldwin against
Asa Ellis, Tax Collector of Los Angeles
County. 1t was an action to recover taxes
alleged to have been illegally exacted.
The main question was: HAS or has not
the State Board of Equalization the lawful
right to increase or lower the assessment
roll of counties so as to affect taxes for
"Lucky" Baldwin that the increase or re-
duction affected the roll only so far as
State taxes were concerned. The decision
of the court is directly to this point and is
in favor of the State board.
In closing its opinion on the point the
court said:
Section 1927 of the Political Code enacts
that all taxable property must be assessed q t
its full cash value. If the appellants theory of
the law be proper one. then there must be
two cash valuations of the same piece of prop
erty-one for the State and another for county
purposes. There can be no real need of Il State
Board of Equalization unless its main function
be to ascertain and declare, as near as possible,
the true valuation of taxable property.
The object which the constitution seeks to
attain is that the assessments shall be made to
accord with the true value in money. We can
not understand how it can be held in the light
of such words that the true value in money
means two true values in money, which seems
to be appellants contention here.
Tax Collector Block has ruled that the
State board has no power to fix valua-
ton upon which county taxes shall be
collected.