The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1905-02-23
INVERSION ISSUES
A JUSTIFICATION
Defends EQUALIZATION OF HEN
NEPIN COUNTY VALUATIONS.
Says that Hennepin Fared as Well as
the Rest Of the State in Spite of the
Heavy Increase Made-Does Not
Discuss the Remarks Of G. j. Minor
Relative to Adjustment.

State Auditor Iverson has issued his
statement in justification OF the Hen
nepin county valuations as fixed by the
state board of equalization. He goes
into statistics to prove that Hennepin
Jared as well as the rest of the state
in spite of the heavy increases made.
Mr.. Iverson s statement first speaks
of the attack made by City, Assessor I! =.
j. Minor at the banquet Of the Retail
ers' association, Feb. 7, and says: It
is not at all surprising to people who
are acquainted with C. J. Minor that
he should have made such a scurrilous
attack upon two distinguished citizens
of Minnesota referring to G. M.
Sprague of Sank Center and Captain
l.. G. Nelson Of Owatonna. Mr.. LIVER.
son does not discuss the attack
junket. He gets right down to figures
at once. He says:
All this powWOw and row Is no doupt
intended to make the people believe that
the increase in the taxes is wholly Que
to the state board Of equalization's I'M
just and arbitrary work. 1t Is a we'll
known fact to every tax officer that the
state board never added one dollar to the
county, city or local taxes. 1t did In
crease certain items Of personal property
and real property, but the increase In
the taxes caused by the increase In the
assessment only affects the amount
which must be paid to the state. 1t in
no wise increases the amount OF taxes
needed for local purposes, because the
cost Of maintaining the local govern
ments is first levied in specific amounts
and the taxing officers determine upon
the rate of taxation when the total
amount Of the assessment is fixed. Thus
an increase in the assessment naturally
decreases the tax rate,
Attention has been called to the 50
per cent increase in the item or House
hold Goods and Furniture" 1t was re-
ferred to as an unjust discrimination
against Minneapolis" It may be of inter-
est to note here that this item was In
creased in seventy-eight counties IN the
state, running from 10 per cent in three
counties and Is per cent in two counties
up to 200 per cent. Several counties re-
ceived an increase Of 100 per cent and
$50 per cent and two counties were IN
creased 200 per cent. It Is not possible
to enumerate here the changes In all the
counties. I merely wish to call atten-
ton to this to show that Hennepin county
was not singled out and Disseminated
against in this item Of household goods.
The same general statement would apply
to nearly every item in the list. I shall
be glad to furnish anyone interested in
the subject with printed copy showing
the changes made by the state board OF
equalization at it's last session. 1t will
convince any unprejudiced man that Min
neapolis and Hennepin county were treat
ed as fairly as other parts of the state.
The increase Of per cent in the real
property assessment Of the city of Min
9neapolis has also been severely criticized.
1t may be of interest to compare the as
sessments Of 1902 and 1904. I call at
tention to the following figures:
1902 1904.
side Minneapolis ...... s7,525,152 $s517, 712
Acres and structures in
- Minnea polls ,521 ,41o o13, $50
City lots, outside Mime .'..s'
apolis ................. 1890, 1888 1,415, 3S5
City lots in Minneapolis. IS, 697 $40 5230s 800
side Minneapolis :...... ee7, $50 &: es1, 715
Structures and lots in 3:s@Es
Minneapolis ............ 3s, 7o3, 1856 40, 4s3, 1876
Total realty outside of sz{85s& - !
Minnearo oils ....:.:..... e,453,3 24 1925, 7s1
Total realty in Mime ISL
Total realty in Hennepin ,5H 4
county .............. .1os, 375, 800 100000, 100
Realty Values Decreased.
The above figures show that the 1904
assessment Of acres, city lots and struc-
lures in the county, outside Of Minneapo-
lis, was increased s7s2,467, while inside
IN 1{fH \