The Washington times., 1913-07-25
RICHARDS LAND
FAVORED. IS CHARGE
District Boar dGriIIs Tax Asses
sor on Methods of Apprais-
! ing Own Property.
CConunucd from First Page

CConunucd from First Page
Mr.. Richards once intended to build. rs
worth 81 per square foot
Now" said Mr.. George, turn there
and see what the assessment was on
this lot
Mr.. Richards said it was assessed at
50 cents per square foot.
You said t was too expensive for you
TO build on. You said it was worth 81
a foot
Yes. I think it is worth dollar a
fot. The assessment is right taking
into account the sale basis
81 am not talking about the sale
price" snapped Mr. George Here is
lot so expensive you wouldn't build on
as you have just said it is worth 81.
Now go ahead with the other lots
Before Purchase.
Acting under directions. Mr.. Richards
read the assessments on his property
for the years 19OS-09 and 19l1-12.
THE 1903 assessments were before We
bought" he started.
GO ahead; that's all right" re-
sponded Mr. George.
The Tax Assessor then read that lots
SOA, sos, sos, S07, and SOS-owned by the
Richards Mckenzie, Kalbfus, and Nye
20 cents in 190S-09, and that No. 500 had
been assessed at so cents.
Mr.. Richards also read that the frs;
five named lots had been assessed AT
cents per square foot, and that the
choice lot, No 500, had remained at the
90 cents figure.
Was there any decrease or advance
in the value of this property afAr the
purchase by you, or between the years
nAmedT' asked Mr. GaOrCp
Gradual Increase.
Il think there was a gradual ad-
vance" acknowledged Mr. Richards
In other words" said Mr.. George,
the value of the property advanced,
but the assessors reduced the assess
ment cents per square foot on some
OF the lots, and on No. SOC the asses
ment remained stationary"
Yes, that is right"
You have previously testified that
you examined these assessments on
your own property and found them cor
rect"
Yes
Mr.. George here drove his point home
by saying that although the witness
says he regarded one of these lots as
worth 81 foot, it is assessed at 20
cents, and nfiye other lots the assess
-ment was reduced cents per square
foot and the assessments were made in
part by the owners of the property"
Congressman George then put into the
record the figures of the assessments
on other lots in the same square and
adjacent to the holdings of the asses
sor and two Of his assistants. He de
veloped that lots Nos. So, 60, and 81 had
taken the same assessments for I9OS-O9
and 19ll-12. and that lots Nos. "A, 75.
iS, and IS, which were subdivided, had
shown slight average increase over
the 1s0S-os figures.
Reads from Books.
Reading from the tax books Mr..
Richards said that lot No. I24 had
been increased from 81 to s1.25: that
lots No. 125, I26, and 127 had remain
ed stationary for the four years at
S1-1c per foot and that lots 12S. 129,
130, and sol had remained stationary
at go cents, while there had been II
cents per foot increase on No. 500.
1t was also shown that two lots SO1
and sos, had been reduced from 40
cents to % cents.
Now of all these lots around you"
said Mr.. George, only two were re-
duced and some of them were raised,
while five of your lots were reduced
and one remained stationary"
Mr.. Richards declared that It was i'm
possible to sell his property even at the
assessed value, and that while he re-
SoANCu bHC SL lIElAl DIS Sl q 1901,
II could not be sold for that He was
asked If he had documentary proofs
20 show that the property could not be
sold at the assessed figures Mr.. Rich
ards thought not, but insisted that the
assessments were all right as comma red
with the sale price. He contended that
the physical location of the lots should
be considered. and said some of the
other property mentioned might have
been assessed too high.
Direct Issue.
One OF the first questions asked As
SCISSOR Richards when he took the stand
today was, are the the assessors 60
ing to continue the two-thirds value
assessments" Members of the com
miteee again appeared hostile to the
idea that the lower valuations were
being followed. despite the report OF
The George subcommittee of last ses-
sion, recommending full value assess
nIentS on real estate.
Mr. Richards said II would be i'm
possible to change the method OF as
sessments at this time; that the tri-
enmai assessment was under way and
that the field work for half of the city
had heen completed. These figures, ne
said, would hold for l914-15.
Why can't you simply raise your fig
ures one-third and give a full value as
sessment?' demanded Congressman Cal
loway Of Arkansas.
Mr.. Richards said that this would ne
cessitate a change in all departments
and that the assessors would go ahead
under the old system
Mr.. Richards said that he had talked
with former Commissioners and had
been told not to let the assessments be
made at less than twO-thTds value.
Chairman johnson Immediately wanted
to know If Mr.. Richards construed the
words less than TO mean equivalent
10" The tax assessor replied in the
negative. whereupon Chairman Johnson
said: