The Washington times., 1903-08-19
KING SAYS "RETRENCH"
AND SUGGESTS THE WAY

George w. King. of 1925 Thirty second
Street northwest. who has so vigorous
ly protested against the present method
of levying water rents in the District OF
Columbia. today forwarded the following
letter TO the Commissioners of the Dis
trict, with the request that it be referred,
if not inconsistent with the rules of the
office. to the newly appointed investigat-
ing committee:
The Auditors report (page 81 for the
year ended June 80. 1902. shows that
the amount received by the District OF
Columbia. from all sources. not includ-
ing amount from the United States. was
S5.594 .596.55 The statement Of w. f.
Myers. assistant secretary TO the Com
missioners. shows that the number of
salaried employees of the District, not
including day labOrers. Is 3.3l7. The
salary of said employees amounts to ST.
4YI,OO6. The contingent expenses as TAX
en- from the Auditors report (though
not IN full. as some doubt exists as to
the proper classification OF some of the
items) amounts TO S6lS. 500. making q
total for salaries and contingent ex.
penses. not including day Iaborers So
OS',6O6. showing that the entire receipts
from all sources. that is taxes. permits
etc, were absorbed in paying salaries and
contingent expenses. excepting 1896
soS.55. This condition of expenditures
IN reference to the receipts will be spok-
en- OF hereafter more definitely.
District Could Save.
IN his expenditure cited above are
the following items: Salaries in the Wa
ter Department, S3O, ,5O3. .35; contingent
expenses in office, 81, 80; card svs-
lem, S2.4e6.76; or total for running the
Water Registrars office. ss5 2g6 ss
About this sum could be saved the Dis
uIct annually. At the same time the
taxpayers could be better accommodated
saved great amount of trouble and
numerous visits to the District office.
In correspondence with municipal au-
thorlties OF other cities, l am informed
that In many cases the water and gen
eraI tax is combined in one payment anu
payable al the general tax office.
why cannot this be done in Wash
lngtonE In Boston, which is much larger
than Washington. all bills are prepared
IN one office Why is it necessary in the
District that taxpayer be rendered
separate bills, one for water. the other
Tor real estate, and be required to nav
at different dates? There is no reason
why the water charge should not be pur
on the bills issued at the general tax
Office and paid when the general tax is
dut and payable. The same clerks could
attend to both.
II. by the adoption of the plan of
assessing water rents on the basis of
the value of the improvements. as is
done in Rochester and other large
cities. not only could the bills be made
out expeditiously, but hundreds of err
rors could be avoided, numerous trims
TO the tax office saved, and this be-
fore mentioned sum of sS5. 5.2s6.6s saved
annually -- -
On Basis of Values.
Assessments made on the basis of
the value of improvements have AT
least some consistency. While il is
conceded that no method is accurate.
except that which employs a meter
solely. the adoption of meters is i'm
practical from an economical stand
point, because of their cost
Water rents should be assessed OF
such basis as to equalize the pay
ments in proportion TO consumption, in
connection with the value Of the i'm
provements and attention paid to the
law
This, of course, does not affect ir-
regular assessments. where water met
ers are required as at present.
"A graduated scale of rents should
be adopted and no Interchangeable plan
observed.
THE law is liberal enough. / hold
that the construction by the Water Of