The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-03-22
DECEPTIVE

The mayor, in his message, gave the per
capita tax Of several cities having a popu-
lation of over 10000. with the remark that
the table is taken from the bulletin of the
United States Labor Bureau for September,
1900. The Sentinel says the table is made
up by taking the same items of expendi-
lures in the several cities. The purpose of
both is to make it appear that the people
of indianapolis pay less taxes than any city
liz the Union, because of the efforts or
Mayor Taggart To get down to facts, no
such table as the mayors message at
tributes TO the bulletin of the national
Labor Bureau appears in the issue for Sep
TENDER. Furthermore, in the line of fact,
it should be stated that the comparison of
the items of expenditure as stated by the
Sentinel is deceptive in the extreme. To
illustrate: Such permanent improvements
of streets as paving or asphalting in the
Eastern cities are paid for by the proceeds
of a general levy on all the taxables, while
in this city the permanent Improvement of
streets and sewers is paid for by a levy
on the abutting property and adjacent prop
erty assumed TO be benefited. In the report
referred 10 Providence, which is next above
indianapolis in the list, paid Si2O. S3S for per-
manent street improvements where Indian
apolis paid s., AS. and s10S.S3 for sewers
where this city paid $S.1OO. st. Paul paid
s651, 600 for permanent street improvements
and 500. 700 for sewers. Most of the cities
included i'm the comparison pay for paving
ty a general tax, which appears in the gen.
eraI expenditures. IF the hundreds OF
thousands of dollars which have been as
sessed for street improvements upon the
adjacent property, imposing thereon a
mortgage of from 20 to IS per cent. of its
value, and not infrequently more than its
value, should be added to the taxation of
indianapolis to make this comparison. the
Per capita would be very different. Prov
idence, r. L., issued millions of dollars
worth of bonds to pay for street and other
improvements, upon which interest amount
ing to $799, Sos was paid in 1899, while In
dianapolis paid but $50. go as interest. Prov
idence paid $2,Sls, COS of it's debt, while In
dianapolis paid but 1900 in 1899. When
allowances are made for these differences
and the comparison is made of the cost OF
maintenance alone. indianapolis pays as
much taxes per capita as the cities whicl
the mayor puts into his list.
Taxation in Indianapolis? During the win
ter of 1899 the Taggart Board of Public
Works opposed the Hugg bill, which im-
til &lo ac-occpoopf for ctraaf nnrOypmpnt
to 20 per cent of the value of the property.
1t Is understood that the present Board OF
Public Works has been behind all the prop
~ositions designed to deprive the oppressed
homeowner of appeal from the decree of the
hoard to improve streets. 1t is the prevail
ing criticism. if not the prevailing opinion
that the Board of Public Works regards
it the main function of it's office to decres
the Improvement of such streets as arc
needed to keep the contractors busy. Hun
dreds OF those who started out to purchase
homes a few years ago ave been compelled
TO give up their beginnings because street
assessments nave doubled their mortgages
Scores of pieces of property have been
taxed for street improvements for more
thar the property would bring in the mar
ket. This has been essentially the Taggari
policy for five years. And yet he has tine
eudacity TO pose as the creator of low tax
alton In Indianapolis Let him be judged
by his own figures: City expenditures in
1895, the year before Taggart. $s4l .909.5S; the
expenditures during Taggart's fifth year
81 ,2s9, O22. 16-increase, IS per cent.
The mayor should have held his message
for publication until the morning of April l