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

It. bTOWno-t ACCOUNT IOT IL vi tuC
theory that the assessors are. and for the
last twenty-odd years have been con-
fronted with the obvious fact that II they
assessed the real estate of Washington
adequately they would, at the rate of
$50 per 500, which is the personal
property rate now assessed and levied.
produce a revenue so large as to direct
the attention OF Congress to the fact that
the District Of Columbia has sufficient
property to furnish all the revenue re-
qured for the expenses of the District
government.
Mr.. George-Do YOU mean without
calling upon the federal government for
one-half?
Mr. Browne-Yes.
Mr.. George-SO that this would APP
pear to show that the half-and-half prin-
ciple would not be needed?
Mr.. Browne-It would certainly not
be needed at the present rate of taxation.
if there were an adequate assessment OF
the real estate of Washington.
"'Mr George-And by adequate" you
mean a just assessment under the law?
Mr. Browne-A just assessment un-
der the law at the true value of the prop
erty.'"
Valuation by Census Office in 1904.
Correspondence between w H. Single
ton chairman Of the Board of Trade
committee. and Census Director Durand
reau has made no estimate of the value
of real property in the District of Co.
lumbia since 1904, when 1t estimated the
value of taxed real property at $780,
2'6.59o and of the untaxed, which con-
sists largely Of government properties.
churches hospitals, etc. $39o0t,4 40. or
a total for all real property at that time
of $500 IA .O62 At the same time the
assessed valuation Of taxed real property
and improvements in the District was
SIT Cos 296. The director added: Ihe
office is formulating plans for 1nvestlgat-
but has prepared no figures for bulletin
and none will be issued relating to the
subject for at least ore and probably
two years from date"
The report then cites again from the
testimony Of Mr.. Browne. as follows:
That the census office places the realty
values of the District Of Columbia. in
Guiding all public property, at $1.2oo,Cp,-
co., The George committee asserts that
on this basis its estimate OF the taxaoie
real estate at STA 10000 is conservative.
The Board of Trade committee points to
Director Durand's letter in refutation.
The letter states that in 1904 the bureau
Of the census estimated the value OF
taxed real estate at S43o'-lo,o- ana %,
the untaxed $780,. O27 40. or total for all
real property at that time of $3.50. 24i.W
The authority relied on by Mr.. Browne
places taxable real property in 1N4 at
S435, 21O. 592. Mr.. Browne place the value
of taxable property in 1912 at $4,000, 600
and the committee follows him. Or. p. 1s)
This gives an increase in values In eight
years of $3OS. $50. 4OSf or about al per
cent, making an average increase or ABOUT
Q per cent per annum. AS the great
growth OF the District has been in the
latter part of the eight years referred to.
the statement of Mr.. Browne is too err
roneous to deserve serious attention.
Number of Houses.
The report continues:
Upon request of Mr.. Redfield, who was
DESTROYS of getting facts. Mr.. Richards
furnished a table Of sixteen cities show
Ing various items. Under the heading
Number of houses for Washington Is
found ST. 56 That is, the table states that
there are in Washington 81 go houses. 1t
is to be borne in mind that Mr.. Browne
and his committee say there are 10000
small homes in one section Of the city,
thus leaving 41,2J6 for large houses In this
section and all houses In the remainder OF
the District.
Your committee has elsewhere noted an
estimate of 5000 improved premises for
the entire District. as given by the as
SCISSORS office.
Now your committee has in its posses
sion copy Of Mr.. Richards table as fur
nished to the congressional committee
upon Mr.. Redf1elds request. This copy
shows, and your committee is advised
that such was the fact, that the original
table contained as the number Of houses
in Washington the figures 5000 and not
81. $50 printed in the testimony.
Upon most reliable information obtain
ed by your committee 1t may be asserted
that in some way these figures have been
changed. Your committee is further
credibly informed that the figures S1,2J6
are those Of the building inspectors Office
4
scription in the District Of Columbia
houses. stables. sheds and outbuildings Of
every kind, many Of which. as your COM
mittee is informed. have been removed.
notably those to make place for public
buildings. Whereas the figures 5000 re-
fer to premises on which there may be
may be one building more"
Your committee is further credibly in
formed that since the estimate Of $500
was furnished your committee actual
count has been made showing that there
are 62,313 improved premises in the Dis
trict of Columbia, on each of which there
may be one building or more.
New Willard Assessment.
Relative to the assessment of the New
Willard Hotel property the report quotes
as follows. from Mr.. Brownies testimony
Moreover, when attempts were made
to apply a rule of construction cost to any
building in detail. the rule failed. In the
case of the New Willard Hotel page
13D, the lowest possible construction cost
of the superstructure was placed at ST.
10000 The assessment on the super
structure was but 100000. Under the
two-thirdS rule the superstruCture should
have been assessed at not less than
81. 100000. and the claim of the assessor
that this magnificent. thoroughly main
tanned and enormously profitable hotel
should be allowed 80 per cent reduction
for deterioration is without justification"
This continues the committee, lis
taken verbatim. but not quoted. from Mr.
Brownies testimony. page 431, except that
failed is used for fell down and
'(page 13D' inserted. The assessor testi-
fled that he figured the cost at 81. 10000,
but one assistant said our figures said
one million and a quarter The assessor
said that allowing for depreciation we
took IL To be worth about 81 100000 And
this is the page referred to by the COM
mttee when it says: The lowest possible
construction cost of the superStructure
was placed at 81 800 600
AS to the cost of this building the pres-
| ident of the company In testifying was
told that the committee had been inform
| ed that II cost 81. 100000. He said that he
had been informed that 1t did not. That
| he had looked it up about a week before
he testified and he said
One million. two hundred and fifty
thousand dollars or $1.260.OOO is what 1t
| cost eleven years ago. Now, II you will
permit me. as regards hotel property. 1t
| depreciates very rapidly. What 1t cost
| eleven years ago is no criterion of its