The record-union., 1897-09-01
WHY SANTA CLARA OBJECTS.
ORCHARD PROPERTY HAS DE-
PRECIATED GREATLY.
Her Officials and Those of Alameda
on the Equalization
Rack.

yesterday morning for the purpose of
attempting to show cause why the as
sessable valuation of the property in
that county should not be raised. Those
present were A. c. Richards, Chief
Deputy Assessor; e. A. Ellsworth, Hen
Iy Chadburn and Thomas b. Russell.
Deputy Assessors, and Supervisors j.
r. Talcott, Thomas D. Wells, John
Mitchell, Charles Roeth and W. H.
Church
The Assessors roll for the county
showed the following figures: Real es-
tate other than town lots, $1I, ,6I6, SO;
improvements on same, So, ,5SS, 800; city
and town lots, SAL ,231, ,125; improve
ments on same, so, AIS. $50; improve
ments on leased land, So, 10; personal
property as per schedule, S9,OU2, o3l;
money, S264, ,915; solvent credits, $206,-
626 Total value Of all property, S94,-
5O1, III.
The Auditors return as fixed by the
Board Of Supervisors, footed up $92,-
SOC, III, as against $92, 2,319, ,917 in 1896,
or a decrease of $226, sol.
Supervisor Charles Roeth took the
initiative, and stated that the specific
reduction in values was on certain par
ticular property, and not on the coun-
ty roll as a whole The values of all
street railways have greatly deprecated
during the past year, he said, and to
that fact more than any other, is trace
able the noticeable decrease in values
of county property as a whole.
Mr.. Roeth was closely questioned
concerning values of property in the
city, and stated that the change since
1896 had not been appreciable. He
also answered questions concerning
assessments laid on particular improve
ments on property which have been de-
stroyed by fire since March 1st. About
certain pieces of property the Super
visor was emphatic that the assess
ments stand, but on other and similar
property which had been destroyed, he
was unable TO testify.
Supervisor Roeth said that while the
County Board of Equalization was
struggling with the roll the statement
was made that no matter what the
local board did. the State Board would
raise the assessment anyway. He,
however, gad protested against the
statement. and had said that the
County Board ought not to presume
that the State Board would increase
the valuation, and that such state
ments would only be in order after the
county was cited to appear and show
cause.
Mr.. Roeth stated in regard to the
data laid before the State Board. and
the adopted resolution accompanying
it, that the resolution had been includ-
ed for the purpose of calling the at
tention of the board to the fact that
the values of Alameda County property
were liked at much higher rate than
Los Angeles County property.
In answer to a question by Equalizer
Arnold. Mr.. Roeth admitted that he,
personally, did not know whether or
not Los Angeles property really was
assessed lower. value for value, than
Alameda County.
Supervisors Wells and Mitchell stat
ed to the board that in their opinion
the property was assessed to its full
value. and that while certain holdings
might have been fixed too low, others
We're certainly too high. They were
certain that, as compared with the
property of other counties, that of
Alameda was assessed very high.
Supervisor Mitchell presented a list
of property sold within the last few
months. all of which had been sold for
less Than they had been asked for.
The Alameda County delegation were
short on data TO make out a good
case. Their presentation almost en-
tirely consisted Of bare statements,
without statistics or data to bear them
out Many of the questions, pertinent
and otherwise, put by the members of
the board, either went without an
swers or with answers which went
lame, and were evidently not satis-
factory.
Chief Deputy Assessor Richards pro-
dueed his rolls and explained the char
acter of gains and losses on property
in the several townships in the county.
He also filed a long list of property
sales, showing that the assessments
We're much in excess of the actual SELL
ing prices.
After the hearing the matter of rails
ing the assessment was taken under
advisement.
SANTA CLARA'S APPEAL
IN the afternoon, L. A. Splitter, As
SCISSOR, and Samuel Aver, Paul P. Aus
tin and John Rose, Supervisors of Santa
Clara County, appeared to show cause
why the valuation of property as fixed
by their Assessor, ought to be reduced
twenty per cent.
Santa Clara County, before the State
Board had a chance to cite it TO ap-
pear and show cause why its assess
ment should not be raised. took the
bull by the horns and petitioned the
board for a hearing to show cause for
a reduction.
The State Board. however was not
even staggered by Santa Clara's de-
mand and returned an answer citing It
to appear and show cause why its as
sessments should not be raised.
Thus it happened that when the offic-
ials appeared yesterday, it happened
that they asked, not for a reduction of
20 per cent. but for 10 per cent. ex-
planning that since the board had man
ifested an intention TO raise the as
sessment, they had concluded to split
the difference, and take a reduction OF
10 per cent.
The Assessors return, as furnished
to the board, shows the following valu-
ations: Real estate and improvements,
$50, Ill ,935; personal property, S4,410,
10; money, S295. 800: solvent credits,
$41,510. Total, SOS. .S59. .420, as against
$50, 406, ,440 for 1896.