The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1897-06-09
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9. 1897.
This paper is Democratic in principles
md is independent in ats uaetcs on all local
questions.


single Tax Futurfty.
Mr.. ]. R. Abarbanell favored The
News" with a letter, yesterday. in which
he endorsed what he understood to be
Mayor Hoos' idea of reform in the coming
tax levy. We think he probably mis-
understands Mayor Hoos, or, at least ex-
aggerates his intentions regarding the
taxation of vacant lots. 1t is some time
since Nj. Abarbanell took a prominent
part in the discussion of local affairs;
but, if our memory serves, he was a
disciple of Henry George some eight or
ten years ago. From his letter, we judge
he still adheres to the preposterous doc
trines of that person. We rather think
he is wrong. however, if he imagines that
ne finds in Mayor Hoos' remarks the
proclamation of a single tax Millennium.
TIL proposition that vacant lots should
be assessed at their full value or at the
same rate as similar improved lots is a
specious one. 1t appeals to the careless
as an unanswerable claim of justice and
TlSul. II Is III realty d very WSdh dliu
questionable demand, and its enforcement
might lead to the most disastrous con-
sequences.
Look at the proposal from a practical
point of view! Mr.. Abarbanell thinks it
would make the city grow and prosper.
Would it? When the lot owner found
49, h1Id;-- tod ,1 - az 4.oo,ofioal
market price, his first impulse might be
to improve it On the spot-to build on it.
There are thousands of vacant lots in
the city, and therefore the impulse to
build would be -thousandfold. We would
nave a building boom for a year. We
would have thousands of structures, rep
what? To lie idle!
There would be no conceivable way of
renting. or occupying them. The city is
already rather overbuilt. Twelve months
ago, there were over four thousand va
cant houses in the city. If there were
ten thousand more, how would the city
- - PAOSPS thNASCy Oh liz NOA
trary, would there not be a carnival of
bankruptcy and ruin? If not, why not?
But if the owners do not build, what
is to happen? The property will be I'M
productive, it will not enable them to
pay the tax: in nine cases out of ten
they will not be able to afford to pay
the tax and they will not pay it. Then
the city must esoheat the property. No
body will buy it at the tax sales, for
one man cannot afford to hold it more
than another. The city must buy it in.
that the property is Withdrawn alto
gether from the tax levy. And how does
that result profit the owners of improv-
ed property? Does it not max the bur-
den on them heavier than ever?
AT this present moment, the city is the
owner of several hundred lots which it
has bought in at tax sales, because the
property would not carry the levy which
the city had placed upon it. The city
is making desperate efforts to get these
lots off its hands so that they may be
restored to the tax levy. The advertise
ment of Mr.. Frank Stevens, the auc-
,ioneer who is commissioned to dispose of
them, is to be found in this very issue of
THE News"
All we have to say to Mr.. Abarbanell.
in view of the facts and the logic of the
case is that any man, who talks of large
" Increasing the tax burden upon i'm
crazy theorist, and is trying to lead the
city hot foot to chaos and ruin.