Evening star., 1915-11-10

/
That refers to the Victor building.
at the corner of 9Th street and Grant
place northwest The improvements
were not completed. The loan was a
ing a fireproof Office building now on
the lot. The first assessment of the
building was for an uncompleted build
ing and the final assessment ON the
building alone was $4,000. making a
total assessment of $147,30S.
Another Error Alleged.
''rhe next case is the north half of
lot IL. in square 44s. The statement is
that it sold for $55,010.
That refers to premises No. 1871 eth
street northwest. The figures are in
correct. The property was traded. not
sold, and on a basis of $4,000 or $685.
900. not $55,000. The very same prop
erty was quoted below. on the same
page. as having sold for $4,000. In
this trade. in which two properties
were concerned. for the piece of prop
and L streets, one piece was put in at
$4,000 and the other at an approx
mately similar figure, and apparently
the two amounts were put together and
the total given as the price of that
property.
The next case is a part OF lot IL. in
square 427. s0S 7th street northwest.
and that was a cash sale. 1t was as
sessed for $12,210. and the statement is
that it was sold for S32.s06. There were
two men who wanted that property,
and they were bidding for it.
Instance Of "Forced Purchase"
The next case is lot 2. in square 1864.
which was assessed for $4.714. and the
statement is that it was sold for
$4,000.
This was an interior lot adjoining
and surrounded by the Corby bakery.
the largest bakery in Washington, To-
Gated on Georgia avenue, north OF
chase at about So square foot, while
the northwest corner of the same
square, corner Of greater intrinsic
value. sold in 1910 at 80 cents a square
foot to Mr.. Cragin W. Donaldson. 1t
would be the worst kind of conflscation
to assess neighboring property on the
basis of the Corby purchase.
Il have that information from Mr
Corby himself. He had to have that
rest of that lot, and the owners knew
he had to have 1t, and he paid So a
foot for it, when in 1910 the lot at the
northwest corner Of the same square
sold for only 30 cents square foot. and
there had been no increase in values IN
that block along Georgia avenue. 1t
is fact that lots 26 to 35, in the same
square were sold at 80 cents a square
foot, and lots rs to 80 at 25 cents
square foot at about the same time.
Howard University bought about one
acre OF vacant ground at the corner OF
Georgia avenue and Howard place at 40
cents square foot just a few years
ago. I have a letter here from tie
treasurer Of Howard University to that
effect.
onnecticut Avenue Property.
THE next case is part Of lot 81. in
square 159, which was assessed for $685.
sss, and the statement is that it was
sold for $4,000. This property was
1928 Connecticut avenue northwest. and
there was an increase in value along
Connecticut avenue about that time in
sales. The sales made at about this
period, about August, 1911, were on
higher basis than that of the assess
ment. The assessment has since been
increased.
IT have a letter here from the pur-
chaser Of that property. Mr.. Frank G.
Carpenter, who is a well-known news
paper correspondent He says in his
letter of September IA. 1915: In reply
to your letter of August 19, 1915. which
would say that the price. $4,000. for
1928 Connecticut avenue was practical
ly cash. but that an extra price was
paid for the property on account OF its
was considered a very high price at
the time of the purchase-indeed. $780,
600 higher than 1t should have cost
The assessment, $2S,699. was not much
over a two-thirds valuation Of the
IT would say in this same connec-
tion. that the year following the pnr-.
chase Of this property. sold 1918 Yer
mont avenue. my old residence, at the
price Of $4,000. which was practically
mont avenue. square 242. south lot IS,
was assessed In my taxes for 1911 at
$11,466. and I had been paying taxes
on that assessment for years. although
the property would not at forced sale
have brought $4,000. According to the
two-thirds valuation. it should not
have been assessed at more than
$6.s66.'
These incidents speak for themselves
as to the equality of taxation in the
District"
Subsequently Sells for 81 900 Less.
The next case is lot 20. north square
242, on the east side of 14th street be-
tween Rhode Island avenue and P
street northwest. which was assessed
for $5.433, and the statement is that it
was sold for $1,000.
Those figures are correct. but the
subsequent history of the property
shows that it was a foolish purchase,
and sold for $9,400.
THE next case is lots 28 and 20 in
square 237,. that being the Lowell
apartment, located at 1907 14th street
northwest. 1t was assessed for ST.
632, and the statement Is that it was
sold for $4,000.
This refers to a purchase by Mr..
Frank Walter for Mrs. Emma j. Wal
ter Mr.. Walter stated this summer
that this was a trade. not sale. We
subsequently found that the property
900. In the same transaction Mr.. Wal
ter paid $4,000. Mr.. Walter stated to
me personally this summer that he
had made a trade for this property and
did not purchase it. 1 found out later
that he had paid cash for it. But the
property sold for $4,000. while Mr..
Walter paid $4,000 for it. all of which
was a matter of record in the records
of the title company.
Mr.. Walter died very recently and
80 could not correct his statement las
to this being a trade. The property
subsequently, sold in April, 1918, for
paid for it.
The next piece of property is lots
1, and is in square 142, assessed for
$24.S05. and the statement is it was
sold for $52,500. This refers to the
northwest corner Of 18th and F streets
northwest, which was purchased bv
Mrs. Alice Copley Thaw She is not
an experienced Judge of values. She
wanted that house, and that is what
she paid for it.
The next case is lots to in square