The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-04-03
Our Assessment System.

lLi5L ."Gch w puo'' = -llTT
showing that BY the census Of 1900 Nor
ok had H. population Of 4e'GA ana ana,
Lynchburg n population Of 1891 that
according to the assessment Of 1900,
Norfolk had realty Vailed at 1923, 27S'l !
and Lynchburg had realty Waited ut
ss,o7s,1so; yet the same assessment net
showed that Norfolk had personal prop
crty valued. at &4,e5o.1ao, while Il Lynch
burg personally was. valued a., Ct s6, ~ :
1o2 we said that this exhibit was as ab-
surd on it's face, and was n fair sample
OF the assessment system IN Virginia,
Our esteemed contemporary. tho Lynch
burg News, somewhat flares UP at our
conclusion, and seems to think that we
designed to dctract from tho golry of
the Hill City Not at all. Lynchburg
Is one Of the most remarkable cities IN
the United States. We believe 1t has the
honor Of being tho richest city per capita
In the land. ii But we cannot believe that
It has more personal props>ey than the
city OF Norfolk. Not that we think
5Lynchburg's assessment Is too high, but
that we think Norfolk's assessment Is
too low. And Roanoke makes about as
Ind an exhibit as Norfolk does Let lis
examine the comparisons X Fl
t3i't Personal Popula-
Property. ton. !.
L. Richmond ........ s1s764,4Ss 5000. 4
?. Lynchbtrg. +. ....... 5,414.1o2 1891
8. Norfolk J. 4,2b0,13Q 46,624
4. Petersburg. :. s. 81 1856 Il 81, $40
&. Danyilie. ta ,.. sYs 3140,666 $500
S. Staulltotl S.Rs.. 1862, $50 1880
2. Roanoke :. 49,. 1925 Jos 81, 405
1t will appear from this that the per
capita, personally OF Richmond is a little
more than 5000: Of Danville u little less
than 5000; OF Petersburg about $50; Of
Staunton little less than s200;i Of
;Lynchburg about $500 OF Norfolk little
less than $1Uu, and OF Roanoke about $3.50.
Take another comparison. The assess
mcnt OF real 4cstateRfor the yeara1905 In
the cities named WIS as follows: Rich.
mond, s4s,1s7.s1B; Norfolk, s3o,27a,11o;
I.ynchburg, ss,s7G,3so; Roanoke, s7.151,737;
Petersburg. s7o9e,21o; Danvile, se,5a5,4oo;
Stanton, s2746,925. It appears from
this that Rlchmond's personally is a lit
tie more {, tion one-thrd Of its realty,
Lynchburg's about nve-elghths, Peters,
burg's about one-half, Danvile's about
one-half, staunton,s about one-half, Roa-
noke's about one-sxth and Norfok's less
than onc-seventh The figures speak for
themselves. sa q $ S,S, & "a y
The Newport. News rinie s Herald 4 in
noting the disparity. says hat Lynch
burg has for many years been the wealth.
lest city in the State per capita, and
that her people are thrifty and prosper:
Gus, and economical with, 1t. VI.
but even these facts do not adequate
ly explain such n striking difference,
says our contemporary, "and In our
opinion tho explanation will be found in
some Other quarter. We believe that
much Of Lyncllburg' S prestige IN this
showing Is attributable FITS excellent.
energetic and fefflclont commissioner Of
the revenue. Few men cscape taxation
in that city II citizen rieglccts to re-,
turn his blanks properly filed out the
commissioner fills them out and taxes
are collected on this basis. AS soon as
now Corners arrive to mako their homes
there they are visited by an employee Of
the commissioner ONCE and in due time
receive tax blank" .st
Lynchburg is all right, but We do mot
believe that her personally is wol til more
that that OF Norfolk. The fuult is un-i
doubtcdIy In tile assessment system.