The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1909-08-19
fQUALIzERS BEGIN
TRAINING SCHOOL
County Assessors Called on the
Carpet for Fixing Valuations
at Too Low a Figure
State Board Steals March Oh
Local Officials by Securing
Private Appraisements

/ "A
for county assessors opened for the
San Francisco semester in the cham
| bers of the board of supervisors yes
terday morning with Assessor W. j.
Smith of Monterey county as the re-
luctant pupil. Brown is chairman of
| the state board of equalization which
is conducting a statewide examination
| into the practices of county assessors
! in making smaller assessments OF
property than is thought by the state
1 board to be fair. The board is striving
to arrive at a uniform system of prop
erty valuation. San Francisco's as
SCISSOR, DR.. Washington Dodge, will
have his session before the board on
Wednesday, August 20.
| Members of the state board present
/ yesterday included Chairman Brown
of Stockton, second district; J. Harry
Scott San Francisco, first district; r.
/ F. Collins Redding, third district, and
| Jeff McElyaine. San Bernardino, fourth
/ district State Controller A. b. Nye,
exofficio member of the board, was alb
sent yesterday, owing to death in
his family but will attend today's ses-
! sion when the assessments of Santa
| Clara and San Mateo counties will be
| considered.
HEAR ASSESSORS DEFENSE
Assessor Smith of Monterey county
! was supported yesterday by County
| Supervisors H. K. Abbott and Dr. l..
| D. Roberts.
BY virtue of an increased appropria-
ton for the board, it was enabled to
| appoint special appraisers In each
county to secure figures for COM
parison with the values assessed by
/ the county officer. One hundred and
| forty-six pieces of property in Monte
rey county, assessed by Smith at $780,
344. were appraised by former Assessor
! j. B. Bennett. representing the state
! board, at s1.600,000 The county as
SCISSORS figures were about AZ per cent
! of the avowed normal valuation of the
| property. The state board holds that
| so per cent of the normal commercial
value is the proper figure for assess
ment
Assessor Smith objected that the
| property selected by the board for spe-
| cial tests appraisement was of higher
| than normal value but Brown replied
! that that did not make a particle of
| difference, as the average should be the
| same, and If it were not, then discrimi-
notion was practiced. The Monterey
assessor admitted appraising real es-
tate a so per cent of valuation and i'm
| provements at 40 per cent, a system
| denounced by the chairman as dis
| eliminating. Smith insisted that he
has increased the county assessment
| from S17,723,155 in 1906 to s30,S76, 635
| for the current year. 5tf
ARGUE OVER VALUATIONS
Brown explained that If the assess
ments were generally raised to nor
NAL level the tax payers would have
no more to pay, because as there is
| but a stated amount of taxes to be
/ levied each year the higher the val
uation. the lower would be the rate
| Smith and Supervisors Abbott and Rob-
! erts objected that if the valuation in
Monterey county was raised and the
! lower assessments held in other coun-
| ties, Monterey would have to pay a
! disprop3Etionate amount of state taxes
| Brown said that the plan of these cur
rent Investigations is to secure a uni
! form valuation
| IF you vote for constitutional
| amendment No. l.. said Brown to the
Monterey officials you will eliminate
all this controversy with the state
| board of equalization. For,s if that
| amendment is adopted. you will have
| home rule in the matter of fixing the
rates on real property taxes and as
| sessments."
| training school for assessors Chair
man Brown said: THE board of
equalization has the mandatory power
| TO raise or lower the assessments of
| county as whole, but we have, no
! power over individual cases in coun-
| ty We have an advisory function to
! treat with county assessors in the
matter of their system OF appraise-
ments. Under a recent act we secured
| an appropriation of $25. 900 to be used
! for securing data on railroad. corpora
ton and county assessments. We
| have appointed committees in each
| county, usually from among members
| of the boards of trade or chambers of
| commerce, to assist in arriving at
/ true appraisements.
| SCHEDULE OF HEARINGS
I'm San Francisco county we engaged
three appraisers to work Independently
and without knowing who their as
| sociates were, in securing compare
| tive appraisements of San Francisco
property. Their figures were not
greatly at variance with the figures of
the assessor"
The following is the schedule of
county hearings to be conducted by the
| state board in the supervisors cham
! bers: August 19 (today),. Santa Clara
and San Mateo; August 20, Sonoma,
Napa and Santa Cruz; August 81, Men
| docino. Marin and Contra Costa; Au-
/ gust %, Fresno Tulare and King; Au-
gust 3D. Alameda: August 25, San
| Francisco.
Board to Fight Increase
! The line of defense of San Francisco
| against an increase of assessment for
| taxation on city realty has been per-
fected by the San Francisco real estate
| board. Following the lines previous
| ly indicated in The Call, statement
of values of realty, based upon actual
! sales in all the representative sections
of the city, has been compiled by sub
committees of the general committee