Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1915-09-27
Offer Made to Any Citizen Dis
satisfied With Rejection of
High School Site Award. !
DISTRICT HEADS REITERATE
REASON FOR THEIR ACTION
Answer Statement Given Out by
Condemnation Board, in Which
Defense Is Made. :

tons the propriety of the Commissioners
action i'm rejecting the condemnation jurys
award Of slS3.000 for the proposed East
ern High School site at 18th. 18th. East
Capitol and A streets northeast is invited
by the Commissioners to file petition
for an upward revision of taxes on the
property.
This invitation is extended in a state
ment issued by the District heads today
in answer to a statement given out by
the condemnation board. consisting of Col.
Myron M. Parker. Aulick Palmer and Rev
Thomas Gordon. in finch the boards
award is vigorously defended. and which
charges the Commissioners with mis-
stating facts. and expresses complaint
that the Commissioners did not ask for a
trial by jury, but took summary action
which virtually amounted to a repudia-
ton of the condemnation board.
The Commissioners reiterated the
reasons given by them for having the
namely, that the award was much
greater than the value Of the property
and 1t was their duty to disapprove 1t.
Their statement follows:
Statement of Commissioners.
I'VE have read the statement of the
condemnation commissioners who
awarded s133.0O0 for the proposed East
ern High School site.
ANY one who questions our analysis
may see the original papers on file i'm
the District building, and any one who
questions the propriety of our action
should visit the site. Then. IL he thinks
the condemnation commissioners right
he g.
SCISSOR his petition for an upward re-
vision of taxes.
THE essential facts are these: The
award was s133.0O0. the assessors val
uation was $4,000. the accuracy or the
assessors valuations is attested by the
actual sales of property in the eastern
section of the city. all of which simply
demonstrates that the award was vast
ly greater than the value of the prop
erty.
THE District Commissioners, being
convinced Of this beyond question of
doubt, realized that it was nothing
more than their plain duty to manifest
their emphatic disapproval of the
Statement of Board.
The statement issued. by the con-
demnation board is as follows:
The commission appointed by the
1904, 1895. 110S and 1909 are somewhat
Of the District Commissioners as re-
Gently published in the Washington
papers. and as reply would submit
the following statement of facts taken
from the records in the case:
THE record will show that the aver
age price allowed by the commission
for the four squares of ground was ca
cents per square foot and not 80 cents
as misstated by the Commissioners OF
the District The award for the land
was also $10.1S2 less than the average
price quoted by the Commissioners. and
not $4,000 in excess Of the highest
valuation Of any of the property own
ers own experts who testified as to
ter of fact, as shown by the testimony
in the case. the award for the land
was over $4,000 less than the average
valuation of three witnesses for the
property owners and was $5.e74.19 less
than the valuation placed by Mr.. Jerman.
$11,6o4.97 less than that placed by MIR.
Simpson and s14.50e.72 less than that OF
Mr.. Mallery.
Record of Valuations.
THE record VIII also show that the
average valuation placed by the wit
nesses for the District and property
owners was s13a, 1924. The award by
the commission was s133. 423.33. something
less than $1,000 IN excess of the average
value given by the witnesses for the gov
eminent and property owners.
las to the improvements. the undis-
puted testimony of Mr. j. c. Tost. rec
conservative and reliable builders. placed
total valuation for improvements of
$37, 7S4.31, and not about $4,000. as was
misstated by the District Commissioners.
The award of the commission for i'm
provements was s30.Sl7. or s6.967.3l less
than that estimated by Mr.. Yost
There was proof introduced showing
that the clay and gravel deposit had a
value of about $4,000, but the commits
sion lisregarded this element of values.
Instructions of the Court
From the statement of the Distrfc,
Commissioners it would seem that the
decision was based more on the assessed
valuation of the property than on the
evidence taken in the case.
1.-THE printed Instructions of the court
were that the commission must not
consider the assessed value of the land.
nor allow the same to come TO their at
tention.'
IF the District Commissioners were
not satisfied with the verdict of the con
domination commission. why did they
not ask for a trial by jury. as is wisely
provided for by law, and usually fol-
lowed? Again, why did they not ac-
cept proposition made by n repre-
sentative of the property owners. that
the District Commissioners select a
man, the property owners another, and
those two to select a third, the prop
erty owners agreeing TO accept either
verdict Why did the District Commits
sioners decline to acced.s to either OF
these propositions? The only inference
that can be drawn is that they were
afraid that the verdict would not be
bility of the award being increased over
that made by the first commission.
Commissioners Criticised.
eff the District Commissioners care
fully read the testimony taken in the
case, consisting of about 1000 pages.
and the somewhat exhaustive briefs
made by the chief of engineers relative
to the reclamation of the Anacostia,
fats, their many misstatements would
not read this testimony. and the only
charitable inference Is that they did
not, their criticism of the verdict Of
the commission would seem to be UNI
"In the consideration of this case
oy the condemnation commission the
AMOUNT appropriated by Congress for
vas not mentioned during the entire
progress of the case. The commission
lid not permit their judgment to be in
luenC,d by any sympathetic feeling
hey might have had for any poor per-
SON who was being dispossessed OF
heir property and home. The verdict
vas made upon the evidence presented.
IA t,.-t hail l. MI rcA NJ