New-York tribune., 1911-11-28
REPLY TO PROF J. B. CLARK
Advocates of Sullivan-Shortt Bill GIVE
Reasons for Their Faith.
n tho Editor of The Tribune

Reasons Tor Thelr attn.
To the Editor OF The Tribune.
Sir: Last week The Tribune printed "A
letter from Professor John B. Clark in
regard 10 the proposed decrease in the tax
rate on buildings. Later In the week you
made this letter the basis for favorable
editorial comment Professor Clark admits
that building in the suburbs Is beneficial in
itself and is valuable element In reliev-
ing the pressure Of population at the cen
tres But he gives such Importance to the
speculative side OF home buying and home
building as to actually fear that fewer
suburban homes might be built under the
operation OF the so-called Sullivan-Shortt
bill
Now, the Sullivan-S -Shortt bill proposes.
through n period of five years, TO gradually
reduce the rate OF taxation on all buildings
I'm New York city till it Is only half the
rate OF taxation on all lands
AS the total land value OF the city Is now
nearly double the total value OF buildings
much as II has cost in capital and labor TO
produce the latter. II follows that to yield
the total tax levy for given year the rate
on buildings would have 10 be lowered al
most twice as much az the rate on land
would be increased.
Thus for the year 1911. instead Of gen
eral average rate for all boroughs of 1.7S
per cent it would have been an average
rate OF 212 per cent on land and an aver
age rate Of 1.os per cent An buildings. The
proposed measure would. therefore, he not
go much burden on the owner Of land as
II would he relief and encouragement to
the owner-or prospective owner-of
building
\ typical small home in outlying sections
Of the city is we'll represented by lot
assessed AT 81 mo. with building assessed
at $1,000 The owner If such home would
find the tax on his land increased by S 2
and the tax on his buildings decreased by
SOS 7s-a net saving of t22 s4 or, II his land
Is assessed AT 1900 and his building az
5000. his. yearly saving would be s1 rs.
Professor Clark seems to think that
bringing the ownership and maintenance OF
an individual home more nearly within the
means Of the average man might be more
than offset by reducing the speculative ele-
ment In land ownership out ~ which
prospective owner NAV now hope for ma
terial increase I'm the land value.
To the advocates of the measure II would
individual home owning is nov beyond the
reach of the many may be found in the
large land value increases Of the past
But. beyond this. II may he seriously
doubted whether the speculative element in
seeking 2 suburban home enters ar al
largely into the mind of the artisan or
wage Garner who takes his family out of
town. or. If II does, whether IT. Is at all
likely 10 prove a successful speculation.
As a matter OF fact, II is the saving in
rent the better conditions for the bringing
NJ Of children and the having q stable
domicile which induce the building Of
small homes I'm outlying districts. and II in
the long run the land does increase In value
Il is IN spite of the buildings. rather than
i'm consequence Of II. and when the land
has risen In value 80 as 10 make sale
profitable. the character of the section will
have changed.
Professor Clarks argument that the sup
ply OF new buildings will be lessened by
tightening the tax upon them, and that
more land will be held idle and out of use
II we increase the carrying charges for so
holding IT, is not a little surprising. u
sounds like the argument of a high protec-
ZIONIST who, instead Of putting In plea
for the direct beneficiary of the high tariff,
we're TO reason that A cut in the tariff
would increase the price of the article TO
the consumer.
There are thousands of vacant lots In the
outlying sections of the city. One real
estate company alone advertses that il
owns or controls twenty thousand such lots
along the lines Of prospective subways. At
Of
ing lot gets off with light tax bill He
can carry It out Of use for years To get the
rise in values growing out of the pressure
and necessities of an expanding population
IT, on the other hand, he improves it with
useful building, he is at once penaized
by having his tan bill increased several fold.
II is i'm regard TO this very system. which
is now In force, that one might be tempted
To- make use Of the harsh word con1sca-
ton" II that term may be properly applied
TO an unsound and socially unjust tax. II
this present system OF penalizing improve
ments is an encouragement 10 suburban
building. II would certainly take a college
professor to prove 1t.
There are perhaps no persons in the com
munity more directly interested I'm an ac-
tive building development I'm the outer parts
OF the boroughs or better Informed about
il than the men who direct the affairs of
our many building and loan associations.
Most of these associations are represent
ed In the Metropolitan League of Savings
and Loan Associations. This Metropolitan
League of Savings and Loan Associations
at its last quarterly meeting recently held
at the Astor House-a meeting very largely
attended-indorsed the Sullvan-Shortt bill
without dissenting vote
MORNAY WILLIAMS.
RAYMOND V. INGERSOLL
New York, Nov. o. 1911.