The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-09-03
None Appear to Show Cause
Why There Should Be
No Increase.
TROUBLE IN PROSPECT FOR
ALAMEDA.
Assessor Dalton's Explanation Not
SatisfactOry-Beamer Expresses
an Opinion.

SACRAMENTO, CAL, Sept. From
all appearances the Board of Supervisors
intend to totally ignore the existence of
the State Board of Equalization in as far
as coming before that body TO explain
why in proportion to taxable wealth City
property is assessed at a lower basis than
| is that of agricultural counties of the
State. On the original date set by the
board for hearing the arguments OF the
| representatives OF San Francisco County
the eQualizers received a petition asking
for further time, and in granting this they
did so with the expectation of a battle
royal. In consequence they have been
laying in a supply of ammunition. But
to-day San francisco failed to put in an
appearance and all the gathered data was
as naught.
Perhaps the reception accorded Assessor
Dalton Of Alameda County last week
dampened the ardor of the San Fran cisco
Board of Supervisors; at all events the
equalizers met an Arctic irost instead of
| torrid heat.
San Francisco and Alameda counties are
not assessed for more than so per cent OF
their true values, declare Equalizers More
house and Beamer. There are entire dis
.tricts within the Bay City which are not
assessed for anywhere near the face value
of the mortgages they carry, and capital Is
not so easily misled that it viii advance
| itself for anything like the true monetary
valuation of property. Speaking more
| fully on the subject Equalizer Beamer
said:
1.-The agricultural counties of this State
are assessed much higher in proportion
to their real value than are the counties
OF San Francisco and Alameda The
assessment of Henry P. Dalton in Ala
media County is at least 20 per cent below
the figures furnished from forty agricuI-
tural counties.
"Al property in Alameda County IS as
! sessed low in proportion to its real value.
excepting some farming property in Sec
tions where the land is not valuable and
productive. We have abundant evidence
to prove this. Proper.y-owners in differ
ent counties have voluntarily come before
the State Board Of Equalization and testi-
fed that they could not pay the taxes on
their farming property were it not that
they owned property in Alameda County.
am confident that Mr.. Dalton knows he
has not assessed Alameda County at its
value. His assessment is unquestionably
popular with the mass of proper ty-owners
in his county, because OF it they avoid the
payment of their share of State taxes. In
about nine cases out of ten Mr.. Dalton has
cut down the value of improvements and
1 cannot see why this should have been
done, except to popularize Mr.. Dalton
with those by means of whose votes he
expects 10 be retained in office.
II am informed that prior to his cleo
| tion Mr.. Dalton promised the taxpayers
that if elected he would reduce their taxes
25 per cent. He made his campaign in a
| buggy placarded with this announcement
and as far as he could do it be has kept
his promise. But that promise was kept
at the expense of every taxDayer Of this
State outside of Alameda County and Mr.,
Daltons assessment should not be allowed
10 stand. I have annually examined the
assessment-roII OF Alameda County for
several years and have always thought it
was low, and yet Mr.. Dalton makes cut
on valuable Improvements that cannot be
characterized in any other terms than as
rio iculous."
1t is claimed, however, that Equalizer
Chesebrough, whose property interests all
lie in San Francisco, does not fully accord
With his associates. But the outlook is
/ that the assessment of Alameda and San
Francisco counties will be accorded a hori-
zontal raise that will place them on an
quality, in proportion TO their ia xabIe
properties, with other agricultural coun-
ties of the State, as the equaIizers view
the situation.