New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-06-02
BOwERY REAL ESTATE.
MR.. MOSS RESUMES THE EXAMINATION OF
TAX COMMISSIONER SHEEHY.


Edward c. Shelby recalled.
Mr.. Moss-Have you any control of the Board o.
o"Are they entirely independent of your A.
OF was calling your attention TO unequal AS
an wn OF to m to 3
the Bowery Savings Bank, also l2s Bowery: ~ wss
snd Il is IN assessed ls at the same sare
That property has been greatly improved hasn't
oHYes. A-No. That bank has been improved
two or three years ago. or four years ago: far
some 9ef Timer, nave AwYe eseh improvements ~
Q-whn the last two or three years there Sa nss
s sGsTs Y az s Years ago. That done in
oNAnd that of course, is a prosperous institu'
oven known as such all over the world? A.
Yes; well known all over the world. -
Q.Have You any idea why, in an equal asse e.
ment there should not have been imposed on ~, ,Se
f~Perhaps the deputy OF that district thought y
was assessed sufficiently In 1895. and by ineress'"e
II he may not be able to equalize H. -. o,hsr
Q-But that is exactly In line Ttn p ,ne DDS dis
properties haye msn,iGneb haye 70 ask the deputy
o."You said that you thought the values haa
been increased along the Bowery7 AIN proper
On proportion TO their value? Ayes
Q.-Now l calling your attention 70 So y,
values The Butchers and proyers SOS nS rsmains
the same for 1899? Al don't remember 'he
of the plot at all ... ,,,. ,,st
been taken of Your books These verihcatiSSns,
of the statements that were mace 10 yO"hstsn.
Bowery values have not been increased a. ne
tally You doubted that. and ! am giyins you was
figures. Al did not DOUBT H. l thous"'
equalized.
SOME INEQUALITY APPARENT
o.-Here is io4 Bowery at $4,000, not increase. ..
,os Rowery $4,000 not increased the O'ien' ;,
Rank lao and 1922 Bowery $4,000. not increaseo "
pou,erv 81 500 not increased. But. when you cur
down in FIfth-st which runs of the Bowery' "a
And that the values begin to increase. why snOas
/ values Increase on Fifth-st., east or the eo"'
/ when they do not increase on the Bowery
/ Have YOU got the numbers OF the Fifth-s' WV
! erty? ,,,n q, .
| OLTwo hundred and fourteen East funs1
! sl75o. increased TO 800 "A new oui'uns
probably. -, IN
Ono. si5 East Fifth-st.. $4,000. Increased "
! sIs 800 A-Perhaps new improvements were na'1
! Q-would you say that new building y"
niece OF property would only increase the asses
! ment 81 OOo? Ali partly erected; we assess u III
the course OF construction. and when finished We
| put on a new assessment value.
| O-can YOU give any consistent reason why
| values should not be increased on the Bowery' anu
vet should be increased just east OF the Bowery
| A-According to the nature Of the property anu
according to its value, Mr. Moss.
/ Off values are not increased on TIE Bowery,
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. OF Essex and Orchard sts.' A
| New improvements, new buildings put up, perhaps
Q-But row after row Of tenement houses III,
| creased from 81 800 to 1000 and 81 900 ap!eceg A.
II the deputy thought that the assessment was 40.
suffclent for 1881 and 1885, he put new assessment
| upon H. and increased It, "a. -.
| ACKNOWLEDGING that the property Is OF the same
character the same buildings doesn't II strike ga 4.
as real estate man and tax officer that ~, ~ Y,
| not an equalization when Bowery values remain
stationary and values on the streets east OF .ne
| Rowery running down Into that tenement nous
| population in orchard and Essex SITS. are increase
| doesn't that seem irregular and UNEQUAL, ,,nst
Mr. Moss want TO state II In this way mu,s
ask you the nature of the property, the eondiuo"
of II and it's present value. ~, :. Aha
city and II Is your business TO know: II nor iv
me TO tell you the condition OF those houses i ~
| know very well that they ere practically ~ NV