Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-01-24
SAYS PROPERTY
HAS DEPRECATED
William E. Lehman Testifies at
County Tax Board
Hearing.
REALTY ASSESSMENT OF
BANK UP 6zl-2 PER CENT.
Representative of Howard Saw
ings Institution Tells of Phe-
nomenaI Rise in 10 Years.

That property in the vicinity of
Branford place and Halsey street
had suffered a great depreciation in
value during the past year was
stated by William e. Lehman at the
final hearing for the taking of tes-
timony in the twenty Eight COM
plants filed by James 4. Mungle.
secretary Of the County Board of
Taxation complaining against un-
der-assessments on property in the
heart of the city.
The hearing was held in the mo-
ton courtroom at the Court House.
Mr.. Lehman was called by John f.
Hardin, who represents the inter-
ests of the Weingarten Brothers
Realty Company. who own the prop
erty at the corner of Halsey street
and Branford place. soon to be oc-
cupied by a new theatre building.
This property is assessed by the city
at $500 per foot frontage. While ex-
pert valuation on it ranges from
81. 900 a, foot to $1,000 a foot, the lat
ter values being that placed by
James A. Berry. chief expert witness
for Mr.. Mungle.
mot worth More Than $1,000 Foot.
| Mr.. Lehman said that in his opin-
ion property at Halsey street, IN
Branford place, was not worth more
THAN $1,000 a foot frontage. He said
the fact that the automobile trade
was rapidly deserving Halsey street,
south of Market. for locations in
Central avenue and elsewhere had
caused a big depreciation in Halsey
street holdings in the past twelve
months.
He called particular attention to
the Colyer property at the corner of
| Halsey street and Maiden lane. This
property, which has a frontage on
Halsey street of 955 feet, was held
at a valuation Of $4,000 year ago,
declared Mr.. Lehman. Now he said
/ 1t was for sale at 100000, and wac
| without purchaser at that price.
The same was true of all other prop
erty in the neighborhood, said Mr.
Lehman.
Mr.. Lehman further stated that
property in William street was. in his
/ opinion, as valuable as property in
IsBranford place, owing to William
street being a well-traveled thor
loughfare, and not a block-long street,
such as Branford place. He said he
knew of one piece of property on
William street between Halsey and
Broad that could be bought at $500
per foot frontage.
Bank Value Increased.
John O. H. Pitney. representing the
4 Howard Savings Institution, then in<
troduced figures to show that the tax
assessment of the institution had in
! creased 621s per cent during the last
ten years, citing that the figures for
1912 showed an increase of about 20
per cent. over the 1911 figures.
Jerome t. Congleton, president of
the County Tax Board, then said
| that the taking of testimony had
closed, and Mr.. Pitney opened the
arguments for the Howard Savings
| Institution, being the first OF a dozen
or more lawyers representing various
property-holders who will argue
| against the granting of the appeal
| to raise the assessments in question
Mr.. Pitney said: THE board in
exercising its fun power in these
cases is assuming an arbitrary atti-
| tude in that it takes the appeal of
a single citizen who. according to the
| figures of his taxes, is interested to
about the extent of three cents. The
Howard Savings Institution repre-
sents 10000 depositors all of whom
are as much interested in the out
come as the complainant. If the
/ board acts on this complaint it is
| going to work an injury to a great
many people on the complaint Of a
single person.
Notice Served at Eleventh Hour.
| Notice of this complaint was
served on the Howard Savings Insti-
tuition on November 49, one day be-
fore the time allowed by law for the
Howard institution or any other per-
son to put in counter-copplaint ex-
| pired. There was no time or chance
| for anyone else TO complain about
any other property.
rs it equitable, fair or decent to
select arbitrarily one section of the
city and to object to it one day be-
| fore the expiring of the limit in which
| time is given TO file objections?
Those affected are powerless to help
| themselves. and surely there are
other sections OF the city that are
also underassessed If the district
complained of is"
Mr.. Pitney ended with an appeal
to the board not to disturb the con-
ditions of 1912 taxes. but to let the
| city assessors and other interested
parties thresh the matter out during
| the levying of the 1913 assessment.
Mr.. Pitney was followed by H. II.
Dawson, who represents the Theodore
Macknet estate holdings on Broad
street and Frederick F. Guild, who
represents A. Fs Meiselbach. owner
| of the garage property at Branford
| place and Treat place. Both took
much the same view of the situation
that Mr. Pitney had outlined
4 No Right TO Raise Assessment, He Says.
John r. Hardin. representing the
Weingarten Realty Company and
who has conducted most of the cross
examination at the different hearings,
! spoke briefly for taking the stand
that the County Board of Taxation
did not have the right to raise the
assessments at this time,
In this he was opposed by City At
torney Herbert Boggs. who has rep
resented the city and Mr.. Mungle in
| the hearings Mr.. Boggs contends
that the County Tax Board in the
present instance is really board of