The Pulaskian., 1915-11-19

tGSS III GV0llt CIi0 ldSt dSSeSSIIlSllI is not collected.
 From the assessments as made, the property in the dis trict might well be classed into four groups, as follows: Group 1, that property on Martin and Valmar streets and Ninth ave- nue, lying north of the ridge line of the hill; Group 2, that prop erty on Martin and Valmar streets and Eighth avenue, be- tween Martin and Valmar), ly- ing south of the ridge line of the hill; Group 3, that property ly- ing on the north side of Eighth avenue and 40 feet or more west of Valmar street; Group 4, that property lying on Eighth avenue on the south side there of, and 40 feet or more west of Valmar street.
 The assessments range down. ward according to groups from Group 1, which is the highest, to Group 4, which is the lowest. The assessments of benefits in the particular groups are made upon the same basis, and are rel atively the same, so far as the land is concerned. depending up- on the location with regard t o improved streets of the particu- lar piece of property. For ex- ample, a lot on the corner of two improved streets is assess ed considerably more than lot on only one improved street, or even a lot fifty or a hundred feet removed from one of the inn proved streets. All lots within 150 feet of an improved street are assessed on that street, while lots more than 150 feet therefrom were not assessed for such improvement.
 Where improvements existed at the time the assessments were made they were assessed in addition to the lot or lots on which they stood, making the assessment on a lot having inn provements somewhat more than the assessment on a vacant lot similarly situated.
 It is perhaps on account of amounts assessed against inn provements, or on account of the amounts which were not as- sessed against Improvements, that MT. Auten bases his main objection to the assessments. The improvements, it is plain to see from the assessment book, were not assessed relatively as high, considering their values, as were the lots on which they stood ,or as were the vacant lots similarly situated. It was evidently the opinion of the as- sessors that the same benefits did not accrue to the improve ments. Whether they are right in this is a matter over which considerable argument might take place. Without here going into the merits of the case, and realizing that what I say is only the opinion of one property holder in the district so far as am authorized to speak, I agree with the evident opinion of the assessors.
 Something has been said about the assessments being confscatory of the property on which they were levied. Such an impression, if any such ex- ists, is evidently founded on a misunderstanding of the real facts in the case. It so happens and for reasons which I think justify it-that the highest as- sessment on any one lot in the district is made against the lot on which l have my home. The total assessed benefits to this property are fixed at $312. The total tax levied is therefore $280.20. I don't believe there is a lot in the district that could be bought for twice that amount. So, we see that if this same amount were uniformly assessed against every lot in the district the assessment wouldn't approach 50 per cent on any one lot. But such is not the case. In fact, very few lots in the dis trict approximate the assess 'ment on the above named lot, and where they do, they are <,~-~v,ox. I<4c ox,I x.oo1s~x