Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1912-12-18

quoting language used by the principal
investigator to indicate absence Of per
sonal animus or a desire to bring about
changes in the personnel of the depart
ment. the committee proceeds:
1t does not appear from the report
whether or not this gentleman changed his
quoted from the testimony and from the
report to show that not only witnesses.
especially Mr.. Browne, but also the COM
mittee. in its report. have made asser-
tons which are not only aspersfons
against the assessors, but amount almost
to charges of misfeasance, If not malfeas-
ance. in Office.
These gentlemen, honorable men of the
best type of our citizenship. are asserted
to have unduly favored one class. persons
of wealth. and unjustly Disseminated
against another class. There is absolutely
no testimony to show anything of the
sort. And by consequence there is abso
lutely no testimony to show any motives
for so doing"
Testimony of Herbert J. Browne.
Statements and estimates made by
Herbert J. Browne before the George
committee are fatty refuted b. the Board
of Trade committee:
MIR. Browne gives a list of most
startling differences in assessment and
sale values to the detriment of the
former. Some Of these have been ex-
planned by Mr. Richards in his testi-
mony. But your committee has obtained
the following statement from the assess
or's office. which conclusively refutes any
adverse deductions to be drawn from
page 3S2:
Take lot II, in square 449 which is
stated as assessed at $11. 100. and as hav-
ing sold for $50 600. The fact is that this
property did not sell for any such figure.
but was traded for ten houses in the
suburbs and the consideration named was
two or three times the worth Of the
property. Any real estate dealer OF
average judgment will confirm our judg-
ment as to true value
Another example is that of a small
property near Corbys bakery. viz. lot
,. square 3064 assessed for 81, ia. sold
but which Mr.. Corby had to have in or
der to extend his plant necessitating an
exorbtant price for the property. Mr..
Corby. 1 am sure. will affirm this fact.
Another instance is that OF lot q.
square 345. assessed at AGO, and sold
for $S5,OOO (old Scottish Rite Cathedral
on G street,. purchased by Mr.. Lisner,
and which. in the opinion Of the buyer.
IS assessed too high at two-thfrds OF
because it adjoined his business and
enabled him to enlarge his plant. If it
had not been go situated. he nor any one
else would have given that price at that
time, because it was greatly in excess OF
prevailing prices.
Still another case cited. square 1SO
lot 40. assessed at 5000. sold for s2O.5oO.
The facts are that lots Nos. 40 and 80
sold for $19;s0o. and were assessed two
thirds Of $4,000.
"'Again in square $40. the considera-
ton for lot 13 is given as $3o,22O when
1t should be $1,000. the property being
assessed on a basis of $4,000.
Lot No. 9, square $40. is assessed at
two thirds Of s23.535, sold for s25.OOo
after the assessment was completed
Lot %. square $40. is assessed at
two-thirds of $2s.424, sold for $4,000
Lots Q and 10. square 49,. are as
sessed two-thirds of $63,27O, sold for
$50. 900 more than a year after assess
ment was fixed.
Unfairness Charged.
'''These are given in a haphazard selec-
ton, and I have little doubt If 1 had the
time l could explain every one of them ex-
cept those based on sales made since the
completion of the assessment. There
certainly can be no fairness in submitting
figures under conditions noted above,
when few isolated cases are culied from
10000 pieces, even though they were
as bad as it is intended to make them
appear.
'Mr. Browne and the committee stress
the high-priced properties in the north
west section are assessed much below
their true value. AS noted. no basis for
Mr.. Brownies true or full value is given.
But in contraventiOn Of Mr.. Brownies
estimates as to these high-priced prop
critics the following statement from the
assessors office is produced:
1--WE have a record Of various sales in
the section surrounding the Pinchot prop
erty at 18th and N streets and Rhode
Island avenue northwest, square north OF
1872, lots 8, 8 and 10, which is assessed at
two-thirds of s199,4s as follows:
Square south Of 1S1. lots part and
Of g. assessed at twO-thirds Of $64, 9O4
sold for $4,000: square south OF 1S1, lot
1. assessed at two-thirds Of $2O.925, sold
for $23. $50; square 1S1, 1T 1874, assessed
at two-thirds of s17.2SO. sold for $1,000
the purchaser considering 1t a great bar
gain at $16,NO; square 1S1, lot 139, assess
ed at two-thirds of $1,000, sold for 49,,
500: square 49,. lot 60, assessed two
thirds of 50 sos. sold for $500: square
$50, lot "A and $50 of 81, assessed at two
thirds of So, 715. sold for $4,000; square
159. lots Al, 49, Al and As. assessed at two
thirds of $3.50, sold for $6.25O; square
49, lot AZ. two-thirds OF $685., sold for
$500; square 100. lot 20. assessed two
thirds of $41,372, sold for $4,000. Total
assessment $21O,249; sold for $19O,9Oo
The committee. following Mr.. Browl-e,
specifically charges that where recent i'm
portant condemnation proceedings threat
ened to reveal low assessments the as
SCISSORS office has had no difficulty in
discovering value on a level with con-
domination awards. as witness
Then follows charge of failure to
! properly assess the two squares north
Of Capitol Park, and notice Is made of
changed figures from black to red on the
assessors books.
Statement by Assessors Office.
LAS to this the assessors office informs
fO1lnUc
1.-The first or tentative assessment of
the squares north of the Capitol Park
was made about a year before the act for
the requirement was passed and was in
conformity with prevailing values at the
time Subsequently the act passed for
their purchase and the effect was to give
an immediate impetus to asking prices.
The board of equalization and review,
learning of the prices quoted to the gov
eminent by the owners. and they being
so much higher than previous value, de-
cided to have these squares reassessed,
which was Immediately undertaken. Aft
err concluding the work. Of course the
new figures were placed on the return
book and the previous figures Cancelled,
which explains the change Of figures re-
ferred to in the report. Every one with
experience knows that there are elements
which enter into the valuation of land in
condemnation proceedings which are not
legally considered but which are actually
considered in fixing values, but which
cannot enter into assessment value.
fn~ hofto Of