Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-03-07
standard which the cities OF his state have
repudiated?
False Pretense of Full Valuation.

False Pretense of Full Valuation.
But not even the representatives OF
states which have cities that report the
vote to increase the basis Of Washing
tons assessment, for the comments of the
census authorities and a comparison of
actual figures indicate conclusively the
unreliability of these statements Of full
valuation.
Forty,-eight of the g. cities which re-
port full valuations are in three states
whose laws compel such nominal valua-
tons But If the assessors of Newark
or New York are asked what the actual
relation of the assessment to true value
is they will say % or So per cent and not
100 per cent. Full assessment valuation
is nowhere the same as full valuation for
sale.
Why should Pennsylvania vote full val
uation for Washington when only one
(Philadelphiai Of its 16 cities even pretends
to have such valuation, and when the
Philadelphia assessor will tell you that the
actual assessment IS very TAR from the
true value?
That the 100 per cent valuation is nomi-
nal only in many cases is obvious IRON
the slightest inspection of the figures
Take Baltimore. for instance. the one
large southern city which has nomi-
nal 100 per cent valuation. The Balt1-
more assessors G912) report the full
value of all the real property in great.
prosperous and wealthy Baltimore as
S372 651 ,502 The Washington assess
ors report that two-thirds Of the full
value Of the assessed and taxed frac-
ton of Washingtons real property is
$3.50. 1924 which makes its full vaiu-
4s3, $50, or s122, 81. 22S more than wealthy.
busy industrial Baltimore. with 226,1s4
greater population. The same lesson is
taught by comparison of Washingtons
two thirds valuation OF $3.50 40
with the fun 100 per cent valuations OF
| Newark. $3o1 2o9, 664. and Jersey City
S19OS5 J12 OF course. 1t is absurd to
suggest that the full valuation of real
property in such cities as Newark ana
Jersey City is in reality less by mil
lions than the two-thirds assessed val
uation of real property in the taxed
fraction of Washington.
Hardly anywhere else in the United
States, NO matter what the nominal
assessment rate of valuation may De,
is realty actually assessed no close TO
the real value M IN Washington today.
/ Prior TO the act of 1902 requiring not
| less than tuo-thirds valuation the law
! enacted in ISIS: required land to pc as
Sessed at its true value. 1t was FOUND
| Assessor Richards testifles, that values
| assessed under this law were some OF
| them one-tenth, some one-quarter. some
| two thirds but none of them seemed to
| be up to the full valuation Most OF
| them, however. were close TO ihe Two
| thirds mark. So Congress passed an act
| recurring that hereafter none OF these
! assessments should be less than two
| thirds Of the true valuation"
| The proposition now is to return to the
/, old law Of 1858, requiring true value as
sessments. under which these widely
varying undera assessments were made.
Abandoning Full Valuation.
The tendency in the United States is
away from the false pretense of full
| valuation assessments. Between 1910
and 1912 Ohio by state law required its
cities to make full valuation assessments.
| The Ohio cities. thus coerced, were the
only cities with nominal full valuation In
| 1912 that had not full valuation In 1910.
| On the other hand, some cities in 1--WE
| states exercising their right to choose In
I the matter have abandoned the false pre-
tense of full valuation and announced a
| lower percentage These states are New
| York, Connecticut. Kansas, Michigan and
Iowa. and the last two states are left
| WITHOUT any cities whatsoever Of 100 per
| cent assessment valuation. The cities
passing from full to a lower valuation in
| clude Detroit New Haven. Albany, To-
| peka, Dubuque. Troy and Cedar Rapids.
| There is an advantage in having the as
| sessment standard uniform for all the
| cities of a state. as Is provided in Massa-
| chusetts, New Jersey and Ohio. Uniform