The record-union., 1899-09-02
YESTERDAYS SESSION.

YESTERDAY ) SESSION.
Deputy Assessor Ed Kay appeared
before the State Board of Equalization
| yesterday to show cause why Sacra-
mento County's assessment roll should
! not be raised.
; The returns as made by Auditor Cohn
! fixed the value of real estate and i'm
| provements at sd, 100, ,S40 as against
! S27, ,196, $40 for 1898, or a decrease of
! $5,6S0; personal property other than
money and solvent credits, SO, 1S9, $40,
as against $3,729, 734, or an increase
/ of S59,776; money and solvent credits,
/ S677 $50, as against SS46, $50 for 1898,
or decrease of $10S,964 This shows
/ the total values for the present year
! to be $31, ,65S, ,240, for 1898, S31, TT, 1884.
/ or a total decrease on all property Of
| $114,644
In answer TO a question by Chairman
| Brown, Mr.. Kay estimated that the
! best property in Sacramento City, from
| Fourth to Tenth streets on K, was
valued at 1910 per front foot, both
/ sides of the street, and inside lots at
! $500 per front foot
Equalizer Beamer suggested that the
/ present condition of affairs began
about 1890, when the old horse car lines
! We're replaced by electricity, and large
/ buildings commenced to go up along
/ the street.
Chairman Brown inquired in which
part of the city reduction of values had
! been made, and Mr.. Kay said it was
! along the north levee, B, C, and d
/ streets. the values of which had ma
! terially decreased.
Equalizer Toland, from his tally
sheet read figures showing that there
/ had been a gradual increase on city
real estate since 1890, high water mark
/ being in 1896; and that similar in
I crease had been made in inside i'm
proyements. taking 1892 as a starting
point. In 1891, the records showed a
decided falling off in improvement
values.
Mr.. Kay stated that the falling off
in 1891 was due to the decrease in
values of improvements along Front
street. He said however, that values
in other sections had been raised so
that there had really been no falling
off in city property values, while values
along K street from Fourth to Tenth
had increased 80 per cent.
Controller Colgan said that while he
had been unable to find record of new
buildings within the past year, he felt
satisfied that more buildings had gone
up in Sacramento City, in proportion to
its size, than any city in the State, with
! the exception of Los Angeles
Equalizer Toland suggested that the
Controller had forgotten San Fran
cisco, but the latter said while his
statement had been rather broad, he
proposed to stand pat
Equalizer L. II. Brown said there was
not a city of 10000 inhabitants in the
State in which the value of its best
property per front foot was not fixed
at double the amount of the best prop
erty in Sacramento.
Mr.. Kay, upon request of the several
members, gave the values on a num-
Der Of individual properties notably the
Capital and State House Hotels, the
Breuner building Weinstock, Lubin &
Co. building, the Golden Eagle Hotel,
Hale Bros. buildings and others. AS all
of the land was assessed at the same
figure the difference in assessments
We're on improvements only.
Chairman Brown inquired as to prop
erty values outside the city, but Mr.
Kay said he had understood that there
was no question as to country prop
erty-that the board had never objected
to outside property valuations.
Equalizer Beamer said that that
statement was correct; that no serious
objections had ever been raised to
county assessments, but that Sacra-
mento City assessments had for years
been matter of considerable discus
sion.
Equalizer Toland next delved into the
question of the merchandise values of
the principal business houses, and got
a fair idea of the values placed by the
Assessor on stock carried by them.
At this point Controller Colgan re-
ceived telephone communication
from Assessor Berkey, who had only
just arrived in town. and as he wished
to be heard before the matter of Sac
ramento County was settled, further
hearing was continued and Alameda
County officials, who had been cited
We're given a hearing.
Later in the day Assessor Berkey ar
rived and in his opening statement be-
fore the board said that in making
his assessments he had dimissed in
! dividuality. There had been no dis