Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-02-24
AVENUE LAND VALUES
History of Square Officially
Known as Reservation A.
HOW 1T WAS SUBDIVlDED
Authority Given City by Act of Con.
gress in 1922.
ASSESSED AND REAL PRICES
Steady Increase Shown by Some Re-
cent Transactions in That Sec
ton of the City.
HOW 1T WAS SUBDIVIDED
ASSESSED AND REAL PRICES

The Star has presented during the past
three months analyses of the values OF
many of the squares on the south side OF
! Pennsylvania avenue north of the Mall
from the Botanic Garden to 18th street,
which the Hepburn bill plans TO acquire
for sites for government buildings and
parking Next come the reservations.
the first Of which is known as reserva-
ton \.
In May, 1872. Congress. by special
act. authorized the mayor, aldermen and
! common council Of the corpora ton of
| Washington to contract with the Wash
| ington Canal Company and obtain its
consent to change the location of such
parts of the canal as then lay between
I'd and 9TH streets west into such other
course as would in their opinion. drain
and dry the low grounds" lying on the
borders OF 'Tyber' creek. The corpora
ton of Washington was also authorized
! by this act to fill up the low grounds. eN-
| tend public reservation No. 10 (Which lies
| between Pennsylvania avenue and G. street
| and John Marshall place and I'd street
| west to Pennsylvania avenue. divide it
| Except such part as had already been
| Sold. and also reservations IL and II
! uhe former between 3 and & streets and
I'd and I'd streets and the latter south Of
! it. facing the avenue) into building lots.
! and dispose of them at public sale on
! such conditions of improvement, etc, as
|
Passed to Private Hands.
This act also authorized the corporation
t of Washington to lay off in such manner
as the President of the United States
might direct two squares on the south
! side of Pennsylvania avenue between Sd
street west and 9th street west and two
} uniform corresponding squares the
north side OF Maryland avenue, to then
divide them mp into building lots and
sell them in the same manner and under
the same terms and conditions. The
| proceeds of these sales were to be used
| in changing the course of the canal. re-
deeming the low marsh lands about Tyber
creek. and the remainder. if there was
any. to be devoted to inclosng. planting
and otherwise improving the public
! square between the Capitol and 9th street
west. Thus it was that the four public
&C. and o. were set apart and passed
from the hands of the United States gov
eminent into private hands.
! \ depression at this point may be per-
who feel that perhaps they have "A claim
against the government as heirs of the
original proprietors'' OF lands lying in
| the squares south of Pennsylvania avenue
between I'd and 18th streets. The act of
May Z. 1922 contained a provision that
any proprietor of the land directed to be
disposed of by the act might institute a
bill in equity in the Circuit Court OF the
DlStflct or columbia. setting fOTtH therein
he grounds Of any claim to the land in
question: and that court was authorized
| to try and determine the case, the right of
appeal to the Supreme Court OF The United
States also being given. Accordingly. the
case of Van Ness and wife agt. the mayor
of Washington and the United States
originated.
Van Ness claimed. with his WIFE who
was the daughter of David Burns. an
original proprietor. that by the agreement
entered into between the United States
and the original proprietors. upon laying
out the city, the public reservations.
streets and squares which passed TO the
| United States were forever to remain for
public use and could not. without the
consent of the original proprietors. be APP
| propriated and sold for private use: that
| the act was violation Of that contract;
and that by the sale and Appropriation OF
| the lands to private use the right of the
| United States was forever determined. or
the original pfoprietors re-acquited
right to have the reservations divided be-
| tween them and the United States. or
else they We're entitled to the whole or
moiety of the proceeds of the several
sales.
Van Ness Plaintiffs Lose.
| The Supreme Court of the United States
decided adversely TO the Van Nesses. and
| held that the proceedings Of the corpora
! ton OF Washington. under and In con-
! formity with the act. Were valid anu enect-
/ ual for the purposes of the act. The case
! IS reported in Peters. d.. and may have
/ a bearing upon the claim of the Kentucky
! gentleman to Center Market square. which
was alluded to in The Star short while
ago.
! February -. 1917. Congress passed an
! act authorizing the commissioner for the
I superintendence of the public buildings
| in the city Of Washington to lay ReSerVa-
| ton No. 10 off into building lots and dis
pose of them in specific manner. and II
| further provided that all sales of SAID
! lots should be made under and upon the
! express terms that the purchaser snail
/ build and finish. or cause to be built and
| finished. within three years Of ms pul-
chase a good substantial brick or stone
house upon his lot. of not less than three
stories high. exclusive of IA basement
story nor less than - feet wide" 1t Is
! presumed that the same general condl-
| lions We're cXacted in the sale OF the lots
! from the Reservations A. r. and ~
some years later. The old buildings, stu
standing. indicate it.
/ Reservation A. according to the tax as
/ SCISSORS book. contains 1856 square feet
of ground, assessed at about Sl.!c an
| average foot. and improvements assessed
! at S16S 700. The real value Of the ground
| and improvements determined by the as
| sessment rule. would be S232.91l.oo. on
! about 81 0Sh q foot for the ground, ana
| $40 OO1 30 or about $3.61 a foot, for both
ground and improvements. There was
sale in this square within the past two
! years. the only one the facts concerning
! which are at present obtainable, and the
! price paid for 1880 square feet. assessed
! at $3.S12 or about 80 cents foot for the
ground and $1,000 for the improvements.
| is said to have been $4,000. or at the rate
of fraction less than &.l9 foot. 1t
would seem. therefore that the purchaser.
if not the seller was guided in measure
at least ny the assessed value of the prop
| erty Its real value. determined by the
assessment rule. which calls for a two
thirds valuation in assessing. is S3.:. Hts.
or about sos average foot. for both
ground and improvements The purchaser
is said to have since spent about S'.Hn
i'm repairs and Improvements.
Wants So. "a a Foot.
An owner whose 4.7:0 square feet as
sessed at 30 cents foot for the ground
alone with improvements assessed at
! $4,200. has real value. under the assess
ment rule, Of s. So a foot for both ground
and improvements. Swants ST.. 900 for his
property. or at the rate of about $o.Ji a
! foot Another owning 2.994 feet: assessed
| AT 81. S46. or about 60 cents q foot for the
| ground and 400 for the improvements.
with IA real value, by the assessment rue.
of S6.Jl9 wants 5000. or at the rate of
about s.: Il foot. There three lots
containing 6a53 square feet. assessed at
slo5 a foot for the ground and S11 800 for
! ,-a1 r,f hi..I.