The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-06-05
SUFFOLK TAX PROBLEMS.
How IL the County 70 Meet the Land
Subdivision scheme?


To THE EDITOR or THE SuN--Sir:
am quoted In THE SUN OF May 81 as de-
scribng measure for evading the pay
ment OF taxes In SUFFOLK by means Of the
subdivision of large tracts into small par
cells so that the tax upon each IL ten cents
year.
This quotation Is based upon a criti-
| clsm l directed at an amendment to the
general tax law which Governor Clynh
signed this year. and which will have
the effect OF suspendng for a period of
| twenty years In some instances the coilcc-
| ton OF taxes. or until the amount reaches
". but had no intention TO recommend
seriously that taxpayers pursue course
which would give them this questionable
benefit
Suffolk county Ia suffering from the
worst tangle of tax matters In the State.
Thousands OF acres OF land which are
worthless for any use, with the possible
| exception OF farming. have been subdi-
| vided and sold in plots 20 or 25 by 100
| feet in size to as many purchasers from
Maine to California. Countless owners,
having found that the prices they paid
discounted values for n generation to
come. have defaultod on their taxes. Boom
, lot companies have fought the levying or
n tax which would cover the cost of col
Letting H. and the Supreme Court has
sustained their pleas. mainly on technl-
calitles. Instance the assessment roll of
1910. when forty books in the town OF
Brookhaven were declared invalid because
n separate copy OF the collectors warrant
was not pasted In each book.
An acre worth $40 Ia subdivded into
thirty lots. What assessment can be lev
led against one-thirtieth OF an acre which
was worth $40 before IL was subdvided?
The assessors hold that each lot Is made
more valuable by the subdivision. and tina,
the town and county must collect enough
tax to pay the expenses OF collection.
They fix a minimum assessment OF $40 on
each OF the thirty lots. and the boom lot
companies go to court and set up "A claim
or inequity OF assessment because a thir
teeth OF an acre Is assessed for the same
amount as an acre was before II was cut
up. The courts have lodged this question
up to tho present time, and 1t remains a
bone OF contention.
The tax law requires thar escn parcel
OF land be assessed separately. and this
requirement has Imposed nm enormous
amount OF clerical labor. with attendant
expense out OF reasonable proportion TO
the amount OF taxes possible to be col
lected The mere extension Of the trlhins
assessments on boom lots IN the town or
Brookhnven has cost In fees to the super
visor who did the work In one year up
ward OF sc 900, while tho taxes were only
about one-nfth OF that amount.
Because OF technical objections on the
part OF the boom lot companies she as
sessment rolls OF the county have been
held to be Improperly compiled, and no
legal tax sale has been held in several
years. The cost OF advertising the boom
lots Is also greatly disproportionate To the
amount Of taxes, and even for the purpose
OF enabling the county to buy In this
troublesome land and getting II or the
assessment rolls the officials balk at the
expense Of sale.
The amendment liking the So limit is 4
makeshlft which. because OF its unfair
ness to owners OF land whose taxes
amount ~ more than that sum, will not
stand test OF law. Moreover II will
perpetuate the evil by making boom lots
tax free until the duped purchasers have
learned that their investments in the prop
erty were foolish.
The crux OF the matter Is the subdivi-
sion OF the cheap land and the forced as
sessment by lots shown on maps filed by
starts with this act OF the land companies.
No scheme to alleviate the trouble which
does not strike back nj the root OF II will
be effectual. ] proposed two years ago
the imposition of filling fee" TO he paid
by the person or company nling the map
and each year az long as the map Is on
file in the County Clerks office. the fee
TO be as near the actual cost OF making
the assessments and levying the taxes
according to the subdivisions MADE BY
those maps as the experience OF the towns
and the county In the previous year could
determine II. CHARLES +. DELANo.
AMIrYvILLE. l.. l., June 2.