New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-12-07
4 TAX To BE IMPOSED.
ON WATERFRONT PROP
ERTY NOT EXEMPT
nr,rsIoy BY THE CORPORATION COUNSEL IN
THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE TAN
AND DOCK OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
or MrSsRs SCOTT AND oBIaEN.

Dock Boards jurisdiction. This property Mr.. Scott
decides IS subject to taxation The .essees OF such
city property. or the parties to whoh permits
been issued allowing such structures to be bui''
must nav taxes Mr. Scott says. In reply TO the
ouestion as to what structures, if any erected by
,ssees on waterfront property belonging 10 the CITY
are subject to taxation. Mr.. Scott wrote;
In answer this question advise you mat a1d n
permits to endure only during the pleasure Oh ,iae
Board are subject to aH2 dsc SO or 0 eanes 9ndr
such permits. their successors in interest othef
' The fact that a structure erected by lessee
or under permit will become the properly Oh me me
CITY upon the termination OF the tease or revocation
~ the PERMISSION does not exempt the structure
from ia alton The structure is the property OF Inc
iessne Notwithstanding the covenant by when It
viii AT a future time become the property Of the
3 Such structures which by termination of the
leases have already reverted to the city, and are
leased TO private parties are not taxan:e;; r,o,
viii prove to be sufficient determine the questions
which you have propounded 49, .. o.. u.o,o,
case will be glad to advise specially IN reference
to such case upon rf b ot Spy NAV 81 arise ne OF
In relation to the suggestion made in your letter
that the collection Of such taxes YOU'D De Iacl III
lessee fails pay the taxes imposed BY the proper
authorities the lease VIII be iorfeied ana b become
prove very efficient in enforcing any tax which
may be imposed upon such structures
OPINION OF PRESIDENT BARKER.
President Barker. of the Tax Department ex-
pressed his entire satisfaction with the opinion OF
Corporation Counsel Scott. 1t was in full accord
ance he said with the advice given TO his Depart
ment by Mr. Scott before the Tax Board started to
collect data which would result in placing valuable
property on the waterfront upon the city's tax
books which had heretofore escaped taxation This
untaxed property Is estimated al millions OF doldrs
of assessed value.
lot Of
as follows
This Department is in receipt OF a communication
from the Department of Taxes and Assessments
from the Counsel to the Corporation of dale the
22d ult. in relation to property under the Jursdc
this Department to transmit list Of all property
referred in said opinion liable to assessment that
the same might be entered upon the books OF the
Department of Taxes and Assessments Tor the pur-
poses Of taxation TINS comm1nicat9h was taTi Peg
poraticn to what structures are covered by said
The whole history OF the administration Of the
affairs Of waterfront property both prior and SUP
sequent TO the ORGANIZATION OF the hy S Ul
Department of Taxes and Assessments shows that
ro mas sSns 'ns built by on
front property belonging to the city In we, we" h OF
fore action is taken to impose taxes on such struct
careful examination should be made into the
circumstances and conditions surroundins-the exist
The Counsel to the Corporation, in the opinion re-
suggested in relation to the taxation of property
belonging to the city. and beg leave to present my
conclusions as follows: First. Property owned by
the city is exempt from taxation"
Then follows d review of several authorities in
concludes follows: 81 therefore of the opinion
that piers, sheds piers. bulkheads or other
city by the lesseos thereof (such structures being
the property OF the lesseesl may De assessed ana
taxed as real estate against such lessees as
owners"
ONLY WITH THE LEGAL SIDE.
This opinion of the Counsel to the Corporation
deals only with the purely legal side OF the ques-
ton as t.was presented TO him. As it Is not the
policy Of the city to authorize or allow lessees to
build piers bukheads, the opinion OF the Counsel
TO the Corporation must therefore be confined to
and to structures on Land under water Deong,H 10
the city in fq b Of fs ays by g
only during the pleasure OF the Board 1t is noticed
formulated the doctrine that parties may by con-
tract regulate their respective interests IN real
estate that may be the. owner OF the buildings
and the other of the lands"
There of course. be no doubt but that this is
a correct statement OF the law The real question.
contract regulated their respective interests? Or
in other words. in the language OF the Counse! to
erty of the lessees? To determine this question
from a strictly legal point Of view the contract in
each case must be examined. These contracts are
contained in the leases and in the permits ted
by the Department Of Docks; in many cases they
are contained only IN the permits. AS the Counsel
to the Corporation does rot quote from refer to
these contracts IL is presumed they were not
brought his attention, and that he has Dot care
fully considered the matter from that point OF
view. and will now take the question up anew with
reference TO these circumstances.
Section III OF the Consolidation Act provides that
Shall have Exclusive Charge ana control of the eas-
ing of part of the wharf property Of the city
of New-York.
Section ZIG of the Consolidation Act contains the
following: An leases made by said department
shall contain covenants the part OF the lcssees 10
make all needfui repairs upon or about the prop
ery leased during the term of the lease under the
penalty OF forfeiture OF such lease and dam
ages: provided. that the said Department may, in
that the ,essoes shall keep in good order and re-.
par, at their own expense, the planking string
bulkheads. reservlng to said Department Of Docks
the rebuilding and renewing OF the under structures
SILENT AS TO TAXATION
An examination Of the leases and permits discloses
the fact that all of them silent to the mat
ter of taxation. The theory in making these eases
that inasmuch such structures had not beer
and were not at that time taxed such tax would
be imposed. and in fixing the rental this has been
taken into consideration and a higher rate charged
a further examination OF the cascs will SHOW
that almost invariably where structure is erected
by ,essee upon waterfront property beiongire
to the city the ease contains a clause that sucl
structure sha! revert - ana become the prOpery
ton OF the lease In Il number Of cases the struc
turec have already reverted to and become the
property of the city ana have been leased With tho
pier upon which they stand and on account of Tho
Improvement the pier has brought a much higha,
rate of rental. Many OF these structures NIL
revert to the city within few years.
II i contended that in a sense these structure,
are the property Of the city from the moment the
are erected, as the lessees have the power l.
remove them. even during the terms Of the leases.
The question presents itself. II it h, technical,
true that certain Of these structures are taxable
IN what manner could taxes be collected? Ii is a
sound principle OF law, and wcI known 10 tie Dc,
paitntnt OF Iakes and Assessments. that taxes fol-
low the property. ana IN case the lcssees refuse
10 pay, the taxes must follow the property into the
ownership OF the city. Therefore, il appears the
tne Vhy pfhctcal way That taxes cOGd be collected
On the structures In question would be 10 have a
covenant IN each lease hat In the essee fail
10 pay me taxes imposed by the proper authorities
IN. tease VIII be lorfe ted and become nul md
Void II The law requires that any OF the structure.
IN question should be taxed such a covenant could
De incorporated IN tho lease. IN. wisdom ~ such
action however, Is open 10 serious doubt hut al
ieasi u would not be exhibiting bad faith on the
part oi the city 10 liz tenants
IN view or 81 these feet. the Boari Of Docks
dHFs 10 De advised to what structure, II any
orecIcl hN less.es !. -frarl