The record-union., 1895-08-17
SANTA CLARA AND SANTA CRUZ.
They Are Heard by the State Board
of EquaIizers.
Monterey. Too, Asks That Her ASSESS
ment be Not Raised-The
Reasons Given.

Santa Clara County had it's day in court
before the State Board of Equalization
Yesterday, A large delegation was pres
ent. which had come UP to convince the
board that the property of The county was
assessed fully as high as il should be and
that the assessment should not be raised.
Beside Assessor Splitter, there were a.
Greeninger, S. T. Ayers, John Roll and
John S. Selby, the Board OF Supervisors.
The board took up the subject OF quar-
ries and asked why they wore not better
assessed, and the answer was that they
were improbable and unstable.
Mr.. Cheesebrough opened list OF ap-
presements made in the county and
asked for an explanation of the discrep-
ancy between them and the assessments.
Mr.. Splitter defended the assessments
and explained that the land WAS poor,
that the vineyard industry was in
lsnguishing condition and bringing no
returns to owners, although they hoped
for brighter days. The appraisements
were high in many instances and the
property undesirable and could not be
sold for anything like the appralsements.
The Daniel Murphy property, consist
ing of several farms, was assessed at 90 10
20 per cent. OF the appralsement. Mr..
Spitzer and the other gentlemen eX-
planned that the places were being sub
divided, and choice portions that had sold
for $3.50 mad been assessed for S2lO an
acre. A great deal OF it could not be sold,
although on the market.
Mr.. Colgan said there was plenty OF
property that 1t was claimed could not be
sold, but il was simply because too high
oil asz m m 4 q
reasonable price it could easily be sold.
Mr.. Splitter said that he had in his Of
fee 20, 900 statements, over 1000 sof them
being of personal property, and 1t was
impossible TO remember each individual
case, but in those he could recognize.
where the appraisers were engaged IN
real estate business, the appraisement
would be found pretty close TO the assess
ment; where the appraisers were not IA
miliar with real estate values, however,
he was satisfied they value property too
high.
In answer to question by Controller
Colgan, as TO the addition made to the
value of property by planting trees on 1t.
Mr. Selby said thatswhen they were first
planted he considered they added to the
value, but it took several years Of care
before they came into bearing, and many
trees had to be replanted. The cost was
greater three or four years ago than 1t Is
now. Ii the land is good, and the trees
planted are of q variety suited to the land,
the orchard will be profitable and the
trees will equal the land in value. If on
the other hand, the trees are not suited to
the land, the orchard will continually run
The owner into debt, and the land would
be more valuable If it had no trees on it.
Some of the orchard land is. therefore,
assessed fully up to its value, and some is
assessed far too high.
Mr.. Splitter said that, as the board
knew, he was of opinion that in good
orchard the trees were worth as much as
the land. II land was worth $500, how
ever, he assessed 1t at that price and as
sessed the trees at $50 or $50 per acre. He
had always had a fight with the orchard
lists on this point, and, as the board
knew, had been sued in order to restrain
him from assessing trees at all. He con-
sidered, however, that taking the whole
assessment into consideration, the assess
ment was fair one. The j. ID. Smith
orchard in Alameda County, which was
said to be the best in that county, was rs
sessed at only $3.50 per acre. trees and all.
a discussion arising on assessment OF
trees, Mr.. Splitter said he did not wish
to criticise assessments in other counties,
or to make comparisons. There are no
statements on file in the Alameda AS
SCISSORS office outside of town statements.
MIR. Morehouse and other mem bers said
that Assessor Dalton had testified on
Thursday that he had 81, 900 statements in
his office.
Mr. Splitter said he had not intended to
make any comparisons, but when he went
TO the Alameda Assessors Office he was
unable To find any statements on outside
property by which lie could find out what
trees or vines were assessed at. He read
a list of prices of property on which the
Improvements were Jumped, and there
was nothing to show what the trees were
assessed for.
Mr.. Colgan said that Santa Clara
County had about the lowest assessme ut
on trees OF any fruit-growing coun ty.
Alameda County, however, had no ad-
vantage, only putting in her orchards at
500. lie read list, from which it ap-
peared that the assessments on trees in
different counties were as follows:
Calaveras, 500; Colusa, $40; Contra Costa,
$50; Ell Dorado. $50; Fresno, $780, Glenn,
500; 1nyo. $50; Kern, 500; Kings and
Lake. $50; Lassen. S25; Los Angeles, $3.50;
Mariposa, $50 to $50; Merced. $40; MADEIRA,
$40; Mendocino, $50: Monterey, $50; Napa,
500; Orange. Sl25; Placer and Sacramento,
500; Riverside and Santa Barbara, $500;
San Bernardino. S225; Sonoms, SI5, Yolo.
$40.
Mr.. Spitzer said he had always ac-
knowledged that his assessment on trees
was low, but he had raised the assess
ment of the county from $50, 100000 to
500, 200, 900 since he was elected Assessor.
Mr.. Cheesebrough resumed his list of
appraisemenls, some of the assessments
running close TO the appraisements and
others being low. Mr.. Splitter admit
ted that some were low, but insisted that
many of the Rppraisements were far too
high.
After while Mr.. Colgan struck piece
appraised at $, 800 and assessed for 81, 500,
on which Mr. Ayers said it was evident
the county would have to ask for re-
duction in its assessment. A number of
similar assessments were found.
Il was noticeable that whether the as
sessment exceeded or fell below the ap-
praisement, Mr. Splitter stood pat and
insisted that his assessment was just
one and generally gave good reasons fol
his judgment.
The change in the State revenue law
which drops property which was on last
years roll, he thought will make differ
enoe OF over half million to the county
roll. lie had nearly doubled the assess
ment on the land at Palo Alto.
Mr.. Selby lnstanced the Reed place.
which was bought in the boom time for
$4,000 and improved at cost of SI3, ,000
making total cost of S33, coo. It is for
sale now, with no purchasers, at ST., 800
and is assessed for $4,000.
MIR. Ayers said that there was much
farming land assessed from S95 to SlO0 az
acre that will not bring that price at sale