The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-08-17
Santa Cruz and Santa Clara
Delegates Defend Their :
Assessors.
A PLANT FROM MONTEREY.
Claims of a Wealthy Landholder
That His Taxes We're -
Too High.

sentatives of three counties were pe4oIe 1ne
State Board of Equalization to-day. The
board thought two of the counties were as
sessed too low, and their representatives
had consequently been asked TO appear
and areue the matter. The people of the
third county thought its Assessor had
oyerdone himself and appeared of their:
own yolition, hoping that the board would
see things as they did and reduce the as
sessments. ~
The first to appear was the Santa Clara
DELEGATION. Equalizer Cheesbrough read a
long list of assessments as compared with
ADVERTISEMENTS made by order of the court,
all of which showed that the appraisers
had a higher opinion of land values than.
the Assessor had. The Supervisors ex--
planned that some of the appraisers were
butchers, dry-goods people, grocers, me-
chanics and others who didn't know any
thing at all about farming, and therefore
had no conception of land values.
Mr.. Splitter said that a certain piece of
land assessed at $40 an acre was on q side.
hill, and so steep that it could hardly be
cultivated at all. Supervisor Selby ex-
planned that a good piece of land with a.
good growing orchard of the right kind of
trees was valued one-half for the land and
one-half for the trees, but there were hun
dreds and hundreds of acres planted to the
wrong kind of trees, the owners of which
were getting into debt. =
Mr.. Splitter said that he had not assessed
any orchards in good condition for less
than $50 Der acre. He showed that many
orchardists in Alameda County had not
been taxed on their trees and vines. For
instance, Sam Rainey's grapevines at
Warm Springs were not assessed at all.
Mr. Splitter declared that he had been IN
able to find single statement in the Office
of the Alameda County Assessor outside of
cities and towns. A Deputy Assessor had
told him that the people in the country
did not return the statements furnished
them by deputies. Mr.. Splitter gave the
names of several Alameda property-owners
whose vines ana trees had not been as
sessed.
Controller Colgan remarked that Santa:
Clara was assessed the lowest of any fruit
county in the State. He read list of the
assessments on fruit trees as follows: Los
Angeles, $3.50; San Bernardino, $225; Gala
veras, Riverside, Santa Barbara, $500;
Orange, $135; San Diego, Sacramento,
Placer, Alpine, Amador, Fresno (orange),
Glenn. 500; Mendocino, San Mateo, $50;
Sonoma, SIS; Ventura, $40; Santa Cruz,
Napa, $50; Santa Clara, Solano, Tulare.
Kern, Inyo, Alameda, Contra Costa, Ell Do
RADIO, MERGED, Mariposa, San Benito, $50;
San Joaquin, Colusa, MADEIRA, Fresno.
Stanislaus Yolo, $40; Tehama, $35; San
Luis Obispo, Lassen, $25; Lake, Kings $40;
Shasta, Monterey, SIS; Sierra, Siskiyou,
$40; Tuolumne, S.. Vines were assessed
generally at $40. The light assessments in
Southern California were on citrus trees.
Controller Colgan did not think there
had been sufficient increase in Santa Clara
property since Mr.. Splitter took Office, and
produced number of statistics to dem
onstrate it. In 1882, the year before Splitter
was elected, the total assessment of Santa
Clara County was, in round figures, $24,
900. The Board of Equalization at
that time thought that was too low, and
raised it to $28 ,0O0, 600. In 1888 Mr.. Splitter
returned $31 ,000, 600; in 1884 S34, 900 900. in
1885 $50 900, 600, which was raised by the
State Board to $3S, OO0, 900; in 1886 $37, 0O0,-
600; in 1887 Sal, 900, 900; in 1888 $51, 900 900,
which was raised to 5000 900; in 1889
$52 000, 900; in 1890 $51 ,0O0, 900; in 1891 $4S-
600, 900; in 1892 $50, 600, 900, and in $685. 1894
and 1895 the assessment stood at $55 ,000,-
600. This Mr.. Colgan did not think was
sufficient increase, compared with former
years.
Mr.. Splitter insisted that the assessment
was fair. The county was almost entirely
devoted TO fruit and this had not been
paying well; consequently, land had depre.
ho
in the county were held on fruit land.
A comparison of assessments showed
that land with bearing trees on it which
would sell in the market at 500 an acre
was assessed at $235 an acre, while land of
the same kind without trees, the market
value of which was 5000 an acre, was
assessed at from $3.50 to 5000 an acre. Con-
troller Colgan thought this was plainly un-
fair-that il showed either that some one
was paying more than his just proportion
. of taxes or else some one else did not pay
enough. =.
Mr. Splitter said he knew that orchard
land was assessed low, but that he did not
believe there was a fruit county IN the
State OF which the same thing was not
true.
. ~ Tie conclusion OF Ine dTg uincuI Luduo
by Santa Clara County's representative,
Frank Mattison, the Assessor of Santa
Cruz, was given an opportunity to show
why the assessment-roll had fallen off
about 3 per cent during the past year. He
said that during the past two years there
had been general depreciation of value of
property. Santa Cruz has had a great
deal of trouble over her city bonds, and
suit is now pending in court to decide as
to the validity of one of those issues. A
Taxpayers Association was formed in the
city of Santa Cruz, composed of leading
business men, and committee from this
association waited on him and tried to ex-
plain that there had been great falling off
in values, caused by the collapse of the
boom and the debts into which the city
had gotten itself. Included in the property
which the Assessor reduced was timber
land. He said that there was general de-
probation in the lumber business in his
county, and that there had been fifteen
mills at one time-there were now but five.
Under the conditions prevailing lumber
could be brought into the county cheaper
than it could be manufactured at home.
n Him opa Of Copfo