New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-02-28
THE TNION LEAGUES OPPOSITION.
WHY THE GLIB FIGHTS THE GREATER NEW
YORK BILL.

WHY THE GLIB FIGHTS THE GREATER NEW
YORK BILL
The committee Of fifteen appointed by the Union
Leacuc a, It's monthly meeting on February H.
has handed in rs report. giving In detail The
re,sors ri4i!fyirg the passage Of thr reS,utoNa
onposuy tn, cna,tr1r ut OF Tire Greater Newly ork
rill ami the opposition of the club 10 tho BIZ H.
regard 20 the provisions Of the bill touching upon
tho Uniform rate OF taxation throughout the Greater
New-York which The bill declares il VIII provide.
the committee thinks this Tho very essence of the
scheme and says:
Section OF the bill provides for the creation OF
Commssi toner's. VINO are hereby directed 10 pre-
parc such bills VII lpoa their cnactrnont mo
law provide government Cor the municipal cor
poration. the Mayor Aldermen and Commonaliy
and among other things for attaining an equal
ard uniform rate o taxation tfroushout the whole
A. 40 enlargei" THIS provision requiring an equal
Of o. b shr nn o S' with
solilation that one g no; practicable without the
the Ltxow sub-commit,ec at Inc one and only hear
INK gracously accorded to the citizens OF New
York on this most momentous subject OF consods-
Ton without notice. except such as was volun-
,ary given by a few newspapers foriy.eight hours
In advance. as a matter Of news, |; Is again
recommended In the nal'rcport OF the Lexow sub
committee with n shameless frankness That
ceeded the Limit OF Ter AVIATION and borrow ns
powers and demands that Neu-Yorl should take
in the burden
In this connection the committee draws attention
TO IN" following statements made IN the report OF
the I.exow subcommittee FIRST. During an .nves-
tgat,on he'd In New-York city no expressly anti
consolidation sentiment disclosed hse.f" Second
None OF the other districts ,other than Broklvn,
proposed to consolidated have sel their voices
In protest agans, the execution Of the mandate OF
1884"
This is a deliberate misrepresentation o. facts
At a single hearing hercInberore mentioned as
given in New-York. a committee representing
large number Of taxpayers and Of real estate ar
gued against consolidation II coupled with equality
OF assessmen. and taxation. and another citizen
representing urge interests argued against II on
the other grounds set forth In this report,
IL evident that II Assessment; and tax rates he
eQua.ized In the consolidated territory New YOrk
TO which New-York would suffer is set forth I'm ths
figures compiled from official BY John H.
Dbble. OF Brooklyn and published In The New
York Tribune OF December H. 1896.
1T ~ thus apparent that on the basis OF the IN
levy OF 1926 New-York city would have 10 nav over
&C. 600 annually more taxes than at present II
the budget were larger and the rate higher as will
be the case In 1895. the burden New-York would.
int account the other districts outside OF NewYork
and Brooklyn. In SO far as Newly must assume
their burdens must her own be heavier"
II must be borne In mind that this increase OF
,sooo.oCo in New-Y5rk taxes would be on the basis
OF the expenditure OF 1895 and result OF con-
solidation with Brooklyn only. But the expendi-
lures In the event OF consolidation would be largely
Increased as compared with 1895 10 provide In The
annexed districts for better pavements better street
cleaning lighting police and fire service water etc
Should Long Island city. the towns In Queens
County and Staten Island be annexed II Is impossi-
BILE to estimate what the increased annual taxes
would be. but sl2.oOO.COO IL probably low figure
In conclusion the committee dra WIS attention to
the fact that the referendum Of 1894 was q mere