The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-11-21

v,tar's AVIATION committee on The pro-
nosed untdxing OF buildings have
hrought forth continued u~nequivocal
onrosi,ion on the part OF the real estate
,n,sres,s. and a very considerable proper
,Ior Of avowed single takers. none OF
.hom appeared to be property owners
,n,mselycs. There have been no fur
,h.r statements from the mortgage in
,.,ests. Leading representatives Of
,r..e with the exception OF Richard NJ.
tIurd. president of the Lawyers Mort
..so Company. have declared that the
.hsnee would mean the cutting of Of all
anita, for development.
Laurence VI. D.. Mcclure. president Of
no Real Estate Board, was the prin-
= ina, opponent OF the measure. whose
oninlon was recorded. Although unable
y ~ artpar himself he filed a statement
snrporting the views Of the Real Estate
mari in general and deploring the
,,rssslty at such a time as the present
n, the committee to bring single tax
,t.orl.s before the public eye and cause
,nrther depression in the real estate
avid He expressed the belief that
,hs,rizlrC was of little value unless IL
contemplated the Introduction OF a uni
,oru system OF taxation for the whole
state. -
smeared as Individual owners, all tcsti-
1v,nr TO the meagreness OF returns ut
n,esen, and the plight which they think
vould he sure to follow the placing OF
IN. principal burden on land. II. a.
Tr,dwel, Of the II al Estate Board and
Allan Robinson Of the City and Suburban
Homes Company also nave Deen nearu
in opposition to the measure.
In fighting for the change the Society
"A Lower Rents and Reduce Taxes on
Homes continues to be the leading or
sanitation. Henry De Forest Baldwin.
treasurer of the society. appeared before
IN, committee on Monday to urge Its
,dn,lbn. and Mr.. Marsh. the secretary.
n preseut at all hearings. Mr.. Leu
buscher is a keen and continuous cross
examiner on the committee.
The question of the proposed systems
bringing about a tax rate In excess OF
the constitutional limit OF . per cent.
az assessed value was raised rather fire.
ouently for the first time during the
week. and seems TO have been effectively
dlspelled by an answer prepared by Mr..
Leubuscher. II appears that 1t must
have been brought up through a hazy
knowledge of the reading OF the pro-
vision In the first place.
The Constitution says expressly that
taxes In addition to those providing FOR
the principal and interest of existing
debt. shall not In the aggregate exceed
. per cent. of the assessed valuation OF
the real and personal estate. "Obvi-
o; ly." as Mr.. Leubuscher says. 1.-The
amount that can be raised by taxation
has nothing to do with the relative tax
rate on land and buildings in any case"
According to his figures approximately
$50, 900. 900 more might have been levied
In N1p Work cifv aat wear without IN
terfering with the constitutional limit.
He also points out that the largest In
crease in the next few years will prob
ably be due to the pay as you 60
policy in debt service, and need not be
considered at all In this regard.
The Manhattan Single Tax Club and
the New York State Single a League.
the first single tax organizations to he
officially represented during the present
hearings. threw little light on the prob
lem under consideration. as they paid
attention only 20 the theoretical advan-
iaees OF the single tax and little or none
10 the practically OF the proposed plan.
which is only a move toward single tax
theories. Indeed 1t was stated by the
secretary Of the State League that the
single taxer. believing his thesis 10 BIZ
economically just, cared nothing fo'
those who might be injured In the change
from the present unjust system.
The second series OF questions asked
by the Mayors committee dealing Will
the whole problem OF taxation covers tine
effect of the untaxing OF buildings upon
building operations. housing conditions
and congestion. Here are n questions
I. Would the untaxing of buildings
simulate the erection OF buildings? II
so, why?
> Would the untaxipg 4 buildings en-
courage the preparation Of vacant ianc
for use? For example. low lands tna'
need to he filled In and high lands tina
need TO be graded down?
2. Would the untaxing OF buildings
hasten the replacement OF old and map
rroprlste buildings by new n appro'
private buildings:
buildings lead 10 a more intensive use Of
the land?
. Assuming that the untaxsng Of
bindings would tend to stimulate tn
lmprC vement of vacant land would tni'
effect lac most noticeable and most i'm
mediate in the case of lands nearest tn'
business centres, or land which for otheI
reas MS is the most valuable OF the land.
still unimproved? When would the
rev equilibrium be reached and wha'
would he the Anal result?
" h'lll tUe uHldNinR WI buiiu
Tend to bring about the evelopinen
o. the m ST valuable lands For example
WOULD it tend to cause the erection o.
buildings higher than would normally b,
Appropriate for the location?
:. viii the ~untaxing of buildings tent
10 greater compactness In the develop
~ ment of the city? In other words. woult
II tend to cause the chief centre and al
inc sUb-centres to he built up solidl,
rather than In a struggling and irregu
lar manner?
s Assuming that the %untaxtng O.
buildings would ten dto prom to com
pact Development to what extent would
ms result In the e~ncroachment upol
nuhli" places or In the occupation 70
building purposes of private space
Which are now held open either inten
honally or otherwise for the publi'
good
. TO what extent would the untax
ing OF buildings tend to the subdivi
Sn o. parcels OF land or to the co"
Tng up Of larger proportions OF eacl
parce. with buildings or with, undul!
nigh buildings?
10 To what extent would the untax
ING OF buildings necessltate the acquisi
HIM It 49, a --A -