New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-09-19
With the arsessors: but we doubt whether such a
nresumntion ia so conclusive in the minds OF o'her


men not to be open to rebutta' 49,, raosonabIe
II would be impossible Wthlh ~ ~. ~ refer 10
lirr - of such a communication az TINS 10 ~
the proofs before this BOARD .elhtlne ~ ne Nv,
teen different counties hiVestSa'eu W oh nroof.
York CITY Tax Commissioners but SUN S w. - CIV
are nj ali times open to the Inspection OF ..i,',G
Commissioners or OF any otHeI - " t,ree counties
/ will. therefore refer to only TWO OF ''''''
by way OF 1oro,nssioners a.lege that Monroe
o,ountv according 10 their lnve tlgauon i Nv
AZ n average OF only 10 per cent Last ia -
neal from the local equalization py th1 Pora the
ST. Poard Of Tav Commissioners. The hitetJ 70.
towns of the county were appellants anu which the
~ ~, NJ able counsel could devise was en-
niov.I TO discover and EXPOSE on the trai 0 mi
ppuc in the city Of Rochester by one party ana
each and all Of the nineteen SoN tn ay that prac-
iJcai, svsrv unusually low assessment IN any ~
Of Monroe county was brought lshI 81 es
,riai II Is submitted that no better means vi I'll
tahIlshIng the ave.age rate Of asSeasIi ny 10 iu,
value could under any conceiVaoIe cHcu'l'''''''
No possible view OF the yoluminous teSt,h ro
received and considered on tnat ira, man s0 ner
cent OF the full value Of its real estate; ana IL t gn
average were taken between me persehtSeV osnond
ogt the rating would have been a traction owl
- per cent committee from mat eOu my y wrS
ioit dov before the meeting Of the state Board Oh
Equalization persistenty insisted that IN s on
to Monroe County. as SHOWN by the eNluSlNr % 81
that appeal it should be credited with al i'aS' -
per cent. - . .h,. uo,rd IN follow
a conseryaiive practice in all such cases ne per per
centage fixed at 80 per cent io
County
MONTGOMERY COUNTY's ASSESSMENT.
An eppeal was also tried I'm Montgomery county
last veor the same effort to show the lowest
possible assessments that could be discovered any
where In the county being necessary 'e'u'' "
,ho. onnool. and on all the evidence 1t was cIearly
established that Montgomery County Is asSesseu
M an average of 20 per cent: but accordihg ~ ''G
Investigation Of the city Tax 'oi"ii''''
'n9uiD We Eonnw submitted list Of over $50 sep
arate sales Of real estate cereH ~ eia occur
tlcaIv every sale other than torced sale md
,ing i'm that country within the last ."O !crt ,,t
lie aggregate Of the prices Obtained conpdlvu no
the assessments for the same proper III nor
proportv sold have been assessed az w, w. p
cent Of the selling price: and hsd forced SAFES p ,t
included the percentage WouH nav inr,ati,n 81
higher and yet according 10 the inyeS, i g.
the city Tax Commissions, V fsI al,c o""''
only assessed at 40 per cent OF luu NAIuc' .orrv
will not trespass upon your space 10 cary
" the CIV Tax Commissioners believe that reai
uropcrt. f. assessed IN the eixht"ei counsl'a ~
toqticafed by them as low as they claim thry 'lle
losing the greatest opportunity OF gis", errcd N
ulafion I'm real estate which hHE b'eI 49,
enterprise and capital in modern s- Inc" ~ aces
form a syndicate and buy up thous;.Ius -, and
Of land and millions OF dollars worth or Guy an"
s So'as b saw a. Only from 81 to - per cent
Of actual value. at Just "hhl II ~ "'9'S0- -''
Now, as n TO- values in New-York County. no such
evidence as 10 comparative values ana ass
o
New-york; and we have been left to reach results
by such methods AZ might be found aF1HHoe.
Mr. Fetner Ia the iniervie" reitILru ,U, aS' ~
The Commissioners say that the ON E L. -.
neutf' Wo made no such statement. we merely
referred to 'he figures on file there 10 sho" tlt II
change I'm the ratio or assessment to fun value in
Nrw-York ana Brooklyn. when the amount Of per
rnits issued for now buildings ana improvements
exceeded tho Increase In tho assessed valuation
J-ei,uar saws regarding
speculative building In New York city. there j.
considerable margin 10 be accounted for yet. IN
euace 10 which he does not refer. we have com
pared the expressed consideration In deeds OF rca
estate In various parts OF the county WIN t we
assessments OF the same property. Nh,n tn,s
method was objected % as inaccurate. We mad mo
same property appraised by real estate brokers or
long exuorlenco IN New York ely. We have COM
pared the prices obtained on sal"s IL public aucil0n
with the ass fgrn"nts ~ the same property. We
have Individually Inquired % our friends nd ac-
qua!rtauces owning real estate IN New-York CRY
for W. hnvc az. mined rortRago loans made by
savings banks. limited by lnw 20 % per cent or tie
have ascorta ned the assessment OF the property;
and following all the" various lines oi INQUIRY
that II an the real estate IN New York County
were assessed the law directs at full value. the
assessment ~ real property In that county would
be nearly, II not quite doubled
COLLECTING IMPORTATION IN NETWORK
may add to that the further Statement, that
We had separate pieces Of real estate I'm various
parts OF New-York County. and representing yari-
Gus classes OF real property, appraised BY real
estate brokers Of long experience. Two hundred
pieces under one appraisemen' wero found 70 be-
assessed on the average At 3l3 per cent OF the ap
praised value. 800 pieces separately appraised by
aIothrr broker with no knowledge the part OF
either of the work OF the other were round TO Dee
nr4.sscd at 800 per cent OF the appraised value
The arrrcgato appraised value of these 800 scpa-
rate parcels 81 - Sli. the aggregate or AS
sess n1snts on tho same property was Slu>.i1N1pO
n. Il. chi a
year prior To- the apprHisrmert and the expressed
confederation as compared win the assessments
showed average asses .nent - ~ - per cent
In tho face OF such evidence all tending TO prove
that real property IN Ncw-York County IS not as
scrscd high G3 per cent Of ful value. with
which II has been credited for several years past
I'm tho state equalization. nevertheless 20 avoid
possibility ~ inlu5tiC" to that county that
ratio WAS continued lu tho equalization table OF
this year; and repeat the statement made In our
report tho state Board OF Equalization. that
were every member ~ tho state Board OF TaN
Commissioners resident taxpayer I'm the county
OF New York upon tho evidence before the Board
I'm the exercise of sound judgment In good con-
science no result more favorable 10 tho county OF
New York could be reached I'm IN" state equaiiza-
ton. and = such table works my Injustice us ho
tween New York. County and the rest of the State
the county Of New York Is not tho sufferer there
by
submit further that # liz time for the Tax Com
mi-stou.rs Of New York city either apply 10 tho
courts for a correction OF the outraEcs which they
allcRc have been perpetrated year after year by
tho State Board ~ Equalization upon the county OF
Ncw-York or 20 ceas" inpugning the motives tho
honesty and the Intelligence II the members that
Board. and rejecting upon the judiciary OF this
State ~ falling 10 appeal 10 Il for redress.
MARTIN HEERMANCE.
Chairman State Board ~ Tax Commissioners.
Albany. sept. l5 1925