The Washington times., 1912-08-25

triennial. assessment was probably car
ried over and based on the one previous
To that.
Mr.. George-But who were the as
preceding this one?
Mr.. Richards-The same men who are
the assessors now.
Mr.. George-Name them, please.
Mr.. Richards-Mr. Kalbfus, Mr.. Nc
Kenzie, and Mr.. Trimble.
Mr. GeofRe-Did they call your at
tention to this increase at the time?
Mr.. Richards-No; that was made in
Mr. George-Have you realized that
the Increase was 35 per cent?
Mr.. Richards-I have not looked into
that particular square. l knew that
there had been considerable increase.
Mr.. George-Did you know that there
was any square In the whole of the
District of Columbia where the increase
of the assessment of old improvements
was as much as Ss per cent this year
over the last triennial assessment?
Mr.. Richards-No. That would have
required my adding up all the different
| year added up and comparing them.
Mr.. George-But this Is such remark
able increase that 1t ought to have
| come to your attention, either because
changes there or because 1t involved
some new method; or, II you please,
new guess and new Judgment. Was
your attention drawn to this 35 per
cent increase In square 49'?
| Mr.. Richards-No.
| Mr. George-And the first time you
realized II has just been as a conse-
quence Of this inquiry?
Mr. Richards--I realize that there had
been a great increase In the southwest
section in some Of the buildings, but I
| had not compared any particular square.
| Mr.. George-Was your attention
drawn to square 497?
/ Mr., Richards-Not to any particular
square. NV attention was drawn. how
ever. to the fact that they had in
creased the buildings all over the south
| west section.
Mr.. George-Do you know Of any
| other squares in this general section
| where the increase has been as much as
IS per cent in the assessment OF old
buildings?
have not gone into comparisons in that
way.
Mr.. George-Have you asked Mr.. Nc
| Kenzie or any other OF the assistant
assessors whether there were any other
squares in the southwest section the as
sessment of which has been increased
as much as IS per cent over the assess
ment preceding?
Mr.. Richards-It would have been i'm
possible for me to have asked any such
question as that. because this has just
been called to nv attention, that there
|
square: but l was acquainted with the
fact that there were increases all over
the southwest section IN regard to the
buildings.
Of the buildings on square 4s7?
Mr.. Richards-Part of them frame,
part OF them brick.
Mr.. George-What percentage OF frame
! buildings, would YOU say?
Mr.. Richards-About a third of them
frame.
Mr.. George-Are those fine. substan-
tial, durable frame buildings?
| Mr.. Richards--No; they are all old.
Mr.. George-Well they are all pretty
| old buildings?
Mr.. Richards-Yes; they are all wha,
we might call a cheap class of buildings
Mr.. George-The price OF the houses IN
the assessment of 191l-l2 would indicate
that they are very inferior, and, as a
matter Of truth. none Of them is under
!, Ave years old?
Mr.. Richards-No; think they are al
old houses.
Mr.. George-And the brick buildings:
long time. most of them.
: Mr. George-And the deterioration OF
buildings Of that sort is very rapid?
Mr. Richards-Yes.
. Guess and Guess Again.
"Our method of assessing buildings
testified the assessor ''is to arrive az
nearly as possible at the cost of con.
structing such a building and allowing
, for a certain amount of depreciation
, for the time in which the building Ii
d assessed" lp. 6O.
When this assertion became the sub
ject of inquiry in tho examination. Il
J was found to be practically withou
standing. The assessors ontce was un
able to furnish any tapulation OF thu
standard Of construction cost or any
case in which the ex parte and inter
1 ested statement of an owner had beer
analyzed and sustained from an inde
pendent source.
Favoring the Willard Hotel.
: Moreover, when attempts were mad
to apply rule of construction cost t
any building In detail, the rule failed
; In the case Of the New Willard Hote
(p. 1917, the lowest possible construction
cost OF the superstructure was place,
at 81, 100000. The assessment on tn
: superstructure was but 500, Unde
4 the two-thirds rule the superstruc
: ture should have been assessed a
, not less than $1,000, 900, and tn
claim of the assessor that this mag
2 nificent, thoroughly maintained, an
enormously profitable hotel should b
' allowed a 80 per cent reduction for de
a terioration, is without justification.
Another notable instance is the cas-
of the assessment on the Cairo apart
ment house (pp. l9l-l92). This buildin
is assessed at S2O2 900 on its superstruc
l ture. on that basis a cost is indicates
OF less than 81 per square foot of foo
space. This gives for this splendid an
notable property a rate of valuation a
low as that of p cheap two-story brio
; house in the District of Columbia. Th
Cairo property pays handsome dividend
t on a valuation of $1,000, 900. 1t cost no
3 less than $500 to eract; and while
was built over twenty years ago, 1t
cost in a period of cheaper materia
was so low and its architecture so ia
in advance of its period that 1t is toda
a thoroughly modern fireproof and well
D maintained property, whose superstruC
ture should be assessed at not less tha
800, 900, or twice the present assessment
I The cubic-foot rule applied to the NeN
Willard was SO 1-3 cents. A rule of
cents applied to the Hibbs building o.
Fifteenth street, brought out a basi
; Of assessment below it's cost, which wa
: $240,OOO The New Willard is a NOR
[ expensively constructed edifice than tn
Hibbs building. The advance in the cos
I of material since the New Willard wa
? erected would justify an assessment a
: an advance of the reported cost, instea
: of 80 per cent below a grossly made
quate estimate. The cost factor use
by the board of assistant assessor
on the Barber & Ross building (p. llS
at the corner of Eleventh and G street
l yyh a