The Washington herald., 1912-11-10

and determined upon; tnat 20 acoo
gled Systematically, the conclusions
in the report being based upon this
partisan treatment of the facts.
It win further be shown that with few
exceptions. though In many instances In
q slightly different form, the changes
both administrative and Legislative which
are recommended In the report have
been urged by the assessor himself for
years. and In some other instancea MI.
Richards either admits the wisdom OF
q new suggestion or predecessors WihnS-
ness to accept It. In the case OF only
one Recommendation, that which urges
the repeal Of the present hxod tax rate
Of 1k per cent, leaving the rate to be
1xed annually by the requirements o.
the budget does Mr.. Richards take de-
cided exception, believing that such
course was not contemplated BY the pres
ent organic law Of the District. which
fixes the division OF the burden OF e1-
pcnses for the District between the gov
ernment and the District.
Partial Answer Ready.
Mr.. Richards has not as yet completed
all of the tables Of statistics which win
accompany his report The report prob
ably will not be made before Congress
convenes. but Mr.. Richards Will give
some Of the figures through which he
believes he has refuted the charge OF
discrimination at q meeting OF the Co
lumbia Heights Citizens Association
Tuesday night.
The figures upon which the conclu-
sions in the George report were based.
according to Mr.. Richards. were not
intended to be representative. Mr..
Richards figures, on the other hand,
are representative. The George report
figures were selected to prove what the
investigators wished to prove. according
to Mr. Richards. In order to prove that
business, fine residence and suburban
property is very much underassessed.
Mr.. Richards claims the investigators
based their conclusions upon sales where
unusually high prices had been obtained.
figures much higher than the cases OF
other sales in the same vicinity and OF
equally valuable property In order to
prove that the poorer class OF homes are
greatly overa ssessed. according to Mr..
cause Of unusual conditions. such al
forced, cash. or auction sales, prices
far below the true value Of the prop
erty were obtained. f..
Thus. in the first instance. placing the
usually high prices as a criterion, the
assessment figures were made to appear
far too small, while the reverse was
the effect in the second instance. In
compiling his figures, Mr.. Richards has
been at particular pains to include both
high and low sales for all property. His
tables will treat separately the different
sections of the city mentioned In the
George report
val.atio, Too High.
t. -
valuation of $74. 900 900 on real estate in
the District. Mr.. George or his investi-
gators have been guided solely by in
fated values, and Mr.. George. as IL true
of other members OF Congress. has often
declaimed loudly against the imitation
Of property values here and has declared
such imitation to be general. However.
comparison With other cities. according
to Mr.. Richards. does not indicate 80
wide a discrepancy between the total
valuation placed by Mr.. George and his
own. According to Richards. the total
valuation Of real estate in the District
is $4s5. 100000. Judging from population
figures OF Washington compared with
other cities this is within less than 81
per cent Of q correct estimate. On the
basis of New York's assessment. q city
the size of Washington should have q
total valuation of $ssL00oooo. Toronto.
which has q population approximately
one-third greater than Washington, and
which Is assessed at two-thirds its value,
as. here, has q total valuation on the
assessment rolls approximately the same
as here. Cincinnati, with a population
somewhat larger than ours. and where
taxes are assessed on q full valuation,
has a total Of $500. 100000. Newark, N. J.,
another city with about the same popu-
lation, in 1910 was assessed on the basis
of a total valuation Of $z74.ooo.00o.
As authority for the figures in the
George report, Herbert J. Browne. the
expert who prepared much of the George
report data. stated that he had procured
them from the Census Once. Mr.. Rich |
ards says that the Director Of the Cen
sus. in letter to william H. Singleton. |
a Washington attorney, disclaims any
knowledge Of such figures. Moreover,
Mr.. Richards claims, the Census once |
would get figures on the total valuation |
OF Washington real estate only from his l
once.
Cites Breoklyn Case.
In reply. to the charge that land ana |
in the District are assess.
I'd at one-third and two-thirds their true
raIue. respectively. Mr.. Richards de-
:lares the ratio is about haif He cites
the case of the Borough of Brooklyn, I
New York City. which he claims 10 com. |
parable to the District because residence /
predominates in both. Brook |
lyn's assessment rolls for this year i
showed that improvements were taxed i
pnly 1 per cent less than land.
The principal aim Of the Richards re- Il
port win be. of course. to refufe the l
charge that small homes In the District |
ire assessed at 60 per cent Of their true /
value. middie-cl1ss homes 1t 30 per csut. l
ine residences at 30 per cent buslusss
1t % per cent. and suburban
property 1t 20 per cent.
To refute the. charge anent businessl
Mr.. Richards has prepared .
able showing the records Of 30 sales
made In the last I'VE years IN the ara
rounded by Sixth. II and Fifteenth
Streets and Psnnsylva11e Avenue. Thessi
laiss comprise about - per esnt Of aIlI
he sales made In that aroa in the last
I've yeara. BY taking . period az nvsi
reafs. NJ. Richards elinina<es thel
:hangss In property values which coald
rot be known IN ls1e when the last as-5
,essment was made. ~ the a1seGDors |
ne forced TO bass their flgurss on. tAsH
'alos Of tn Drepssi1 e the tims fhst1
lsselasee - saaejr