The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1901-03-26

dwell in brotherly love with all neigh
bors. Brother Rowe points out that W.
can now settle down into unqlsturpet
harmony upon the basis that liknow NJ
law, and he does it in a beautifully ar
tistic manner. / like to see thing
done well, il it be done at all.
In passing l might say that the law
don't read quite as he quotes it, 1t reads
property shall be assessed at it's pres
ent true and actual valuation" insteat
of at it's present market value" ant
there is legal difference enough to win
law suit therein
Now that we have reached harmony
and the end of our labors and now thai
I have given Brother Rowe the last say
/ might just sum up in word the mar
monies at which we have arrived.
We both agree that the bill ought te
be amended by striking out the 80 pei
| cent restriction.
| 2d-We agree that the trainers of the
bill want action under 1t to set a stand
ard Of value for the neighborhood con-
cerned, and that it ought to be amend
| ed so as to do that by law.
3d--All agree that the standards SC
set up ought to be needed by the asses
sors, and all agree that the bill ought
| TO be amended so as to mention the as
SCISSORS and compel them to heed
| 4th-We agree that the law as above
quoted, that the assessors shall assess
at present true and actual valuation,
has been the law for over twenty five
years; that the refusal of the assessors
,1nr nCC =
| me,t evil that produced all the trouble;
that their refusal to heed the law has
recently wrought the over assessment
evil that produced the Rowe bill; that
therefore they ought not longer to be
trusted in this matter as the Rowe bill
and its defenders propose to trust them,
but that the whole matter ought to be
taken from the realm of good intention
and reduced by an amendment of the
Rowe bill to the realm of positive law.
5th-We agree that under as well as
over assessments ought to be provided
for, and that the Rowe bill ought to be
amended so as to do 1t.
6th-We agree that the tax dodger
could beat it for time at least, If not
forever and we agree in the hope that
the assessors would discover and pre-
vent the fraud.
7th--We agree that a 100 foot piece of
land worth 5000 per foot and cucumber
ed by an old worthless building that
would cost $1,000 to remove, might, I'M
der the Rowe bill, set up standard of
value for land in the neighborhood $50
per foot too low, and we agree in hop
ing it wouldn't.
sth-We agree that land owned by
man who was real estate incompe-
tent, might result in a sale under the
Rowe bill that would set up a standard
of value rs to 80 per cent. too low
9th-We agree that the bill provides
only for dropping process which is,
of course, in the general direction of the
reimbursement evil.
10th-We agree that If an undesirable
gentleman. one of very low degree of
culture, moved into 1.-THE middle of
block, where all was refinement round
about and land worth $500 per foot.
land values as fixed by the Rowe bill,
might begin at the two ends of the
block at 5000 pa foot, and the curves
representing them might run along par
allel to the base until they approached
the undesirable neighbor and that then
the curves might begin to slant down
until reaching $3.50 per foot in the two
lots next to the middle one We agree
that this man might move around the
city jumping values down. under the
Rowe bill, wherever he lighted 1t
would be funny standard of value,
wouldn't it?
11th--A man with a $4,000 piece of
mortgaged al $4,000 might get
hard up and need to raise $4,000 in six
months. The Rowe bill being the most
way of raising money in
four and half months at the expense
of the city. is invoked. No one happens
to want bargain in that neighborhood
just then, and we all agree he would get
his assessment reduced by the Rowe
bill 1000 below the proper level. The
standard here would be set by the hard
up condition Of one Of the neighbors, as
IN the previous instance by the state of
culture of the inhabitant
12th--Said a man once to the owners
IF a large manufacturing plant GLOW |
much is it worth ?" The reply made by |
4 bystander was, ut Is worth a million
% the owners, and nothing to anyone
slse." We agree that it is hard to tell |
where the tax level would settle under |
he Rowe bill in cases of this sort.
13th--A man owing all the tenements |
n the block might have good thing in
,ach to him. but who would want to
)uy the middle one, at a reduction even. !
eaving the seller to reduce income Just
Is he chose by reducing rents Temporal
lily in the neighborhood. We agree
hat in such case such landlord would
re pretty sure to work an under assess
nent for himself under the Rowe bill
pplied to the tenements one at a time.
II to one and then from that to the
theirs by the standard of value dodge,
14th--We asree that as soon MS ths !
Rowe bill becomes law, the assessors
hould go into house and the following
conversation take place: Do you want
o stay here or sell out? Answer: STAY
ere. Own all the property around
ere? No. Is this place of specially
Ugh value to you owing to associations,
to-? Yes, Is this building an encum-
rance upon the land? No Are Won
isposed toward taX-dodging, or are
ny of your neighbors? No. Are Won
r any of the neighbors hard up? No
re your neighbors all cultured and re-
ned? Yes. What. do you call John