The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-01-29
STATEMENT BY B. B. LEWIS.
Concerning Controversy Over Taxa.
 tiOn In 1st and 2nd Districts.

Editor Evening Farmer:
 Sir-The peculiar ex-parte nature of the evidently carefully prepared ad- dress of the new president Of the Board of Apportionment to his fellow members, in the matter of taxation as between town and city districts, seems to call for comment.
 Much of the obscurity that befogs this question would be cleared up if proper understanding was had of the exact nature of the problem in voIved.
 Let it then be understood at the out set that all property for which the Second district improvements have been provided by the city should be rfShtfully included in the Second dis trfct. The real question then is, should the outlying First dis rict property, having none of these inn provements, be charged for the same? Outside of the natural instinct, in 'matters of taxation, to put it on the other fellow, 1t is difficult to discern any plausible reason for so doing. Why shou d a man pay for what he hasn't got, and don't get?
 The ex-parte character of MT Coop CTS address is shown in the wholly One-sided nature of the data cited by him, and the absence of the more than counter-balancing items. Much stress is laid on the subject of lights in the outlying district. The garbage and numerous other items wholly uncon- nected with the outlying district are discreetly kept in the background. On garbage alone, the outlying dis rict is soaked for about S2, zoo yearly MT Cooper complains that the tax rate of the out ying district is small. He cites adjoining towns as having a tax rate much higher. That is easily eXplainable, on the one hand by the higher valuation at which Bridgeport property is listed, and on the other that in the adjoining towns, as Fair kept streets with city Improvements which are wholly lacking in the out lying district of the city.
 In the outlying section of the East End, seven gasoline lights, costing s175 per annun, represent the total of city expenditure, outside of a day 8 work, by the road gang, once in three or four years. The tax on my few ond district, more than pays for the sum total of the city expenditure on this outlying section, aside from the sch polling of a few children
 The fairness of MT Cooper's argu- ment may well be questioned when ha brings in items like the big North'l Main street outlay, as legitimate debit of the outlying district. I think it is now generally understood that the mo- tive power in this large expenditure was the same as that behind many cent years; the same which saddled | S40O,O00 incubus of debt upon the l city for its permanent elevated road | way through the center of the city; l
 
 jumbo cars are running. our bridges i and calling for new ones of more mas i siVe construction to be built for itE l use by the city at large expense while | contributing for 1t the merest pittance, | or refusing entirely
 The extension and widening Of North | Main street, with it's accompanying | trolley extension, throueh the big | ledge of rocks at the HawIey farm, ! am told, was a move by the same | old OctoEus still doing busir ess at the | old stand, for Farring the entrance Of | the proposed Danbury and Bridgeport | trolley into the city-a preliminary | move toward a subsequent process of | deg tuition into its all devourirg maw. l
 Be it as it may, the city whacked | up the large sum required-some $70,- | 600 to $60.0O0, MT. Cooper tells us That | it has been so far improbable in- | vestment for the city, is eviden'. We | doubt very much if the extension of | toward mile of double trackage for | which the city has thus kindly pre- 1 pared a roadbed, brings in any addi- l t'onal income to the city from it. | Whether the numerous fine residences ! now going up in that section vii, | eventually. by their taxable value. re- l turn a fair interest on the ci'y's in | vestment is certainty problematical.
 LEWIS