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

u
the moderate rate of tan now prevailing
would mean only its increase.
Thus in the District the increase Of tho
standard of assessment from No-thrd7
10 fun valuation means an increase NJ
taxation of realty by one-haf ri least.
since no decrease OF the tax-rate can
nc expected
What Washington needs is the uni-
form application Of the present stand
ard. and not either an increase or de-
crease of its assessment resulting iu the
unsettlcncnt Of the rate.
Nobody's Doing It.
IT IS not necessary Tor convenience ~
comparison and To assmilate Washing
ton TO other American cites Ia 90 on
the nominal full valuation basis Fun
valuation means FUN valuation as tue
words are construed in other cities Tho
comparisons determine whether Mash.
ingtons taxation is reasonable are ailr
other cities. To make comparisons faf-
the same construction mast he placed
upon the terms employed 1'h., ,rnsus
shows that comparativcl, few American
states and American cities have even I,
nominal fun valuation "f realty Tor tax
sire that in most NJ the cities which
have nominal fun valuation thc az
sessment is not At loo per cent IN far-
Now In the light ~ these facts is the
Districts valuation to he raised from
S62 "a per cent 10 100 per cent. on, Of
the majority class into tho small mi
nority class and then he further boosted
into class by itself by compelling III,
assessors to assess not merely norn,uslI,-
but actually at tho leo ner cent xsl,ia-
non The census figures suggest tina.
nus is done noNhere else in the intel
states. " hat Kind Of compariso,,.
could be made when fun valuation mean
something in Washington which /, dii
nor mean IN any other American cit,r
Why compel Washington assessors =,
assess Al fun value when very fca Amer
lcan cities pretend to do A. aud nom. *
actually doing il The ann * to hsvs
ashiIgton reasonably assessed aud
taxed as compared with other American
cities Why should WashnSfon's asses
inent basis he made to eN coed that of the
vast majority of American ,itiesr
The census Of iaio shows that or 10,
american cities having over :.d,sn popti-
latioi, 80 are assessed ~ less than fu1
valuation and G. noInnally at ful value
OF these e. cites. -, ar, in Massacb,,-
sets. ~ in New J.rscv and l.. in ohi,
leaving only - il, Al the rest OF tho
United States &: Rhode Island :, New
York 'out of Il cities. . Connecticut.
Kansas. Maryland. ! New Hampshir.
| Pennsylvania and ! West Virginia.
Thus only eleven states contain anv cities
assessed at full valuation a nd four Of these
There are no cities with fun valuation
assessments in the remaining thirty seven
states-among which are Alabama. Arkan
sas California. Colorado. Delaware. Flori-
lucky. Louisiana Maine. Michigan. Min
nesota. Missouri. Montana Nebraska,
North Carolina. Okla hollla. Oregon. South
Carolina: Tennessee. Texas Utah. vir-
a fnuf tor and rri~
Why should the representatives Of these
thirty-seven states vote to compel IN
Washington an assessment valuation not
eyacted in any of their home cities? Why
should any southern congressman fx an
assessment basis at the capital which IL
not applied 10 any of his constituents?
Why should any representative from
kentucky or Iowa or Missouri force upon
the capital burden-incrcasng assessment
standar d which the cities of his state have
repudiated?
False Pretense of Full Valuation.
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 Washing
tons assessment. for the comments OF the
census authorities and compa rison OF
actual figures indicate conclusively the
unreliabilty of these statements of full
valuation.
Forty-eight Of the G2 cities which re-
port full valuations are in three states
whose laws compel such nominal valua
ions 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 a. or 81 per cent and nos
100 per cent. Full assessment valuation
is nowhere the same as full valuat ton for