New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-06-03
A.-You 80 to Klngs ana 4 Is De


Nou.york A-You 30 to Kings and II 10 the
same way-based upon nothing. . .A.,. ..r
If values were being assessed az tnelr fui
,.oy,os IN RrookIyn, and values being assessed at
49, f,,u values in New-York. what was there TO
s%Hew.York with Brooklyn II they were out OF pro-
PS ohont of what kind of prOpOrton' "A fair
and o Tfal t''S what are s.ttng at It
stunned IN b' real value and in New-York- A.
nTnterTnptugp-No; no rate reeo !,T, .,,-..
az "A public impression. .,,.s IL.
% And an impression that prevailed with the
Tsx Commissioners! A-No'
u.sp TO SEE THE EQUALITY.
- xow Mr. Commissioner. then you had TO
9.N,so s rate in New York II per cent and only
rsised the IN Brooklyn per cent There was
sV oD@Whst was I you were equalzing? A.-An
u rate per cent Of the assessable value? A
1 TTying to bring them TO a condition under the
'SSYou are lodging II you VIII excuse me using
that o answer Your Questions d n2 3aT TSoss
O-it is a pity you cannot answer the questions
dire yery pleasantly together But want to say
that your manner Of answering is almost as IN
structiye direct answer. Al am glad you are
p o"i am sorry YOU do not see your duty as
witness Of coming right 10 the point. Al am
6.%You said that one reason why the Park Bank
was not Increased was because 1t was bank; and
vet il should have borne It's proportion OF IN
crease for equalization should II not? A-No, n0t
II It was more heavily assessed thah other p'op-
erty before. which was the case -.
Then let US LOOK t at bRGC CRReYr3 a. the corner S
building there is the Evening Post Building You
have always looked upon corner as oeins more
valuable than the other lots? A-Aes. 10000
Q~And when those former blocks were assess assessed
before they were looked upon more vaiuApie
than other lots. wscen't they? A-They must nave
Deen -.,,on was
the basis Of this assessment THIS proportion IN
value had already been considered. A-heS. ~.
ooSneI tnA' had been considered in the former
assessment there is no reason why the same rae sh
Corner building and the adjacent lot now? A
Probably in that particular case ..,.,-., ., that
Dwell generally? Al am speaking OF 'ndl
pa DO voa agree with me generally? A.-Prob-
ably generally do. DO not see your point
EVENING POST BUILDING.
. r.So this particular case. We have the
Evening Post Building assessed in 1898 at s'0'Vo'
IN 1899 we have II assessed at $4,000 an increase
Of re- Al Per cent. The building, however, adjcin-
ing H. quite an ordinary brick structure NO. ZV-
broadway was assessed at S4OOO last year ana
s assessed al S2SOQO this year. an increase OF 100
per cent Now the corner building Is increased
only 30 and a fraction per cent the corner build
inc with large Offices a newspaper building ana
the ordinary structure next door is increased 100
per cent How do you account for that-that looks
Ike inequality does It not? A-As compared with
last year. yes. and not otherwise.
y
$4,000 TO s9eOOOo-OO per cent. But No. 1874 Broad
wav Immediately adjoining that and not differing
substantially In real value IS increased only 80 %
nor cent getting the benefit Of nearly 10 per cent
over the unfortunate owners Of Nos. 49, and 2o2
How do you account for that? A.-As compared
with last year probably that IS so.
Q.-Then, at No. 1872 Broadway next 70 NO ls4
YOU have No ls4 at s. per cent. and No. 1872 next
door 10 It. is only A per cent How DO you account
for that? A-The comparisons are made.
O-Broadway is the important point on that
block hut you get down TO Nassau-st.. and you
have Nos - and = Nassau-st. increased from
10000 to $4,000 20 per cent that is more than NO
1872 Broadway but the Fulton building, at No. "
Nass5 u, is increased only liz per cent Now mere
on one block, these specimens that have been
picked out and the other values equally un-
equal. bit these specimens have been picked out
which you have returned your sheet Now the
Evening Post Building, II I'll per cent; No lW
ROADWAY 100 per cent: No. 19s Broadway. per
cent. No. 1872 Broadway. a 44-& per cent; No. =
Nassau II 1870 Nos 70 and = Nassau, % per cent
No. 81 Nassau 20 per cent; No. Il Nassau, % per
cent
So you vary right through on Nassau-st Then
you slip around TO John-st.. and we have No. %
John. 40s per cent: No II John. 81 81 per cent,
more than twice as much as No. O. John. Now, |
asked you Mr. Feitner little while ago, If II was
not the fact when compared the '9S assessment
10 the 's9 assessment the basement or sS, II II
wasn't true that 80 was 'monstrousiy unequal.
ask you again the basis OF 81, isn't the assess
ruent Of SO monstrously unequal? A.-Wen. don't
know as YOU could call It mOnstrous; no.
O-You Will admit II is unequal A.-UnequaL
Dwell we will 60 into that little later.
The Chairman-We Will take recess until 2:So
MI Moss-One moment. Is Mr.. Birdsall present?
Mr. Brdsall ard Mr.. Mckay may hand in the ma
teral called for. and be excused for the day.