The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-16

PO-O,'oV' nhilO ZIG property WAS dSSCooSu
for $495, 1915, discrepancy of $124;78I. He
called attention to the Hickmott place,
assessed for $7400 and mortgaged for ST.
634; the property of J. NJ: Karsberg, as
sessed at $1525 and mortgaged for $3.50;
and that of L. Gavin, assessed for $500 and
mortgaged for $1,000. He called upon each
OF the Supervisors and read an interesting
list of assessments and mortgages on prop
erty In the townships represented by them
ln'whlch similar inequality civilizations
between assessments and mortgages was
shown.
The Supervisors tried to explain that
those mortgages were. made, a long while
ago, when the property was very high IN
value; but Mr.. Beamer picked out one OF
the most fragrant instances and showed
that the mortgage had been made last
year. 49,
Mr.. Patterson, who owns 5000 acres of
land stretching along the road from James
landing to Decoto, was called by the as
SCISSORS to show that the property was
valued too high instead of too low. He
said that he was assessed from $S5 to $143
an acre, the latter being for grain land
upon which he had realized scarcely any
thing.
Equalizer Beamer remarked that as he
was farmer, he was certain that land
would not pay interest on value when used
for grain, and asked Mr.. Patterson why he
did not plant with garden stuff.
The latter replied thar he had considered
the matter and that he thought, consider
ing the nature Of. the land, it was better to
plant it in grain. During the past year he
had got S266 sacks of barley off $40 acres,
about ten sacks to the acre. Some of his
land he had sown to hay, but the price
was so low that it would leave him so
small margin after marketing it that he
had hesitated long while before doing so.
The land averaged in assessment 500 an
acre, which he thought was too much.
In reply to a question from Equalizer
Beamer as to whether ne would sell for
$500 an acre, he said he would not, because
he did not want to dispose of his home.
In answer to a question if he had not
bought land in his vicinity and paid more
for it than what his own was assessed, he
said he had, but that he was compelled to
pay the price asked, as he had to have the
land in order to make his own lines
straight.
Deputy Assessor E. A. Ellsworth, who
assessed Washington Township, underwent
a rigid examination under oath. He said
his superior officer had instructed him to
assess all land at its cash value. AS to i'm
provements, he was told to assess all old
buildings at a reduction of from 80 to 40
per cent New buildings were assessed at
Tr,, ar1 ha
took the owners sworn statements for the
amounts.
The deputy was then confronted with
figures showing that Daniel f. Moody was
assessed $1,000 on eleven acres, and that he
owed mortgage of $1,000 on the same
land, and that Florence NJ. Hodson was
assessed for $3.50 on ten acres and owed a
mortgage of $1,000 on it.
When asked in regard to this discrep-
ancy, Mr.. Ellsworth said that he had no
control over the values money-lenders
placed on land, and that he had tried to be
as fair as he could. The assessment in his
township this year was fully $l,O00,OO0
higher than last year.
The town of Alameda then came up and
the Board of Supervisors was confronted
with the following figures: Property as
sessed for $4,000 was mertgaged for 5000,
property assessed for $3.50 mortgaged for
$1,000, and so on through list of one
hundred or more pieces. all of which were
mortgaged for from 10 TO 200 per cent more
than they were assessed for. A sample of
the latter was piece of property assessed
for $500 and mortgaged for $500.
Assessor Dalton declared that he did not
think it was fair for the board to pick out
isolated cases and argue therefrom that
the assessment was not correct.
II have done the best I knew how" he
said, "and although 1 do not claim that
the assessment is as good as it might be,
will promise that if given another chance
next year, will return higher values"
Controller Colgan made the Assessor re-
peat the assertion that another year he
would return higher values and then, asked
him what he meant by the board not hav-
ing been fair in the selection of property
as samples of differentiation.
Assessor Dalton said that he realized
that he was under oath, yet he meant
what he said, and that while he did not
think that the board intended to be other
wise than fair, yet he understood and
knew that the man whom he had beaten for
office assisted in gathering the data now
being made use of. AS for the data which
the board had gathered he admitted it to
be correct, but did not think the way they
came by it was fair.
Dalton then read telegram from Muir
ray Township, signed by taxpayers, asking
that the assessment be not raised.
Mr.. Dalton was asked regarding the
Blake & Moffitt building, which last year
was assessed for 1000 and this year for
$4,000.
His reply was that the contractors told
him that they could put it up for $50, 900
and make $4,000 or it.
Beamer said that the board had been in
formed that he (Dalton) had cut the fig
ures which contractors had given him 40
per cent.
Dalton replied that this was absolutely
false.
Another argument against the correct
ness of Alameda's assessment was then
produced. 1t was shown that while her
solvent credits, as returned by the As
SCISSOR, were $685., $50, Humboldt County re-
turned 100000, Los Angeles $797, 900, Napa
$647 900, and Sacramento 81, 159, 600
Assessor Dalton admitted that the