Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1914-05-13

ments in particular cases should
bring about that equitable uni
formity of assessment which
every faithful assessor earnestly
seeks. Washington realty in
1912 staggered under its excess
i've burden OF assessment move
ment and life in it are paralyzed By
the forty-million tentative increase
OF the very recent assessment. not
vet finally adjusted An increase
by one-half OF the present burden
of tax assessment as proposed by
the George bill or its increase to
S744 100000 as suggested by the
George report OF 1912 would de
strov property values at the CAPT
tai and would mean ruin to pres
ent property owners.
| When Washington tax assessments
were last discussed in detail in this col
| umn the census figures of 1910 were used
| The statistics of 1917 are now available
and the census figures Of that year are
| utilized in the comparisons which follow
Not Habit to Assess Full Value.
WHY compel Washington assessors to
assess at full value when very few Ameri-
can cities pretend to do it, and none is
actually doing it, The aim i to have
Washington reasonably assessed and
taxed n g compared with other American
cities Why should Washingtons assess
ment b.. sis be made to exceed that of the
vast ma orty of American cities?
| The census of 1912 shows that OF 1915
American cities having over 10000 popu-
| lat:on. 1873 are assessed at less than full
valuation and 6. nominal!y at full value.
OF these e. cities - are in Massachu-
! leaving only IA in all the rest of the
| United States e Rhode Island, New
York. 2 Connecticut. 2 Kansas. 1 Mary
| land. New Hampshire. 1 Pennsylvania
states contain any cities assessed at full
valuation and four of these states have
| only one each of such cities. There are
no cities with full valuation assessments
in the remaining thirtyseven states.
Why should the representatives of these
| thirty-seven states vote to compel in
Washington an assessment valuation not
eIacted in any of their home cities" Why
should any southern congressman fix an
| assessment basis at the capital which is
not applied to any of his constituents:
But not even the representatives Of
states which have cities that report the
100 per cent basis of assessment should
vote to increase the basis of Washington's
assessment. for the comments of the CEN
sus authorities and a compa rison of
actual figures indicate concusively the I'M
reliability of these statements of full val
uation.
That the 100 per cent valuation is
nominal only IN many cases is obvious
from the slightest inspection of the fig
ures Take Baltimore, for instance. the
one large southern city which has a
nominal 100 per cent valuation. The
Baltimore assessors Q912) report the full
value of all the real property in
great, prosperous and wealthy Baltimore
as 1872. 651 .5O2. The Washington asses
sors report that two-thirds Of the full
value of the assessed and taxed fraction
of Washington's real property is $3.50. 3D..
4s7, which makes its full valuation on
the 100 per cent basis S435. 4S3, 40, or
s122. 49,. o2s more than wealthy, busy.
industrial Baltimore. with 226 1Si greater
population. The same lesson is taught by
valuation of $3.50. :'22 4S7 with the full
| 100 per cent valuations of Newark s301,-
o09 664, and Jersey City. $3.50. S57 .512. OF
course. it is absurd to suggest that the
fun valuation of real property in such
cities Newark and Jersey City is in
reality less by millions than the two-thirds
assessed valuation 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 be,
Is realty actually assessed 80 close to
the real value as in Washington today.