New-York tribune., 1915-03-24
Robbing New York City.

the City, Mr.. Frank L. Polk
To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: Buried in the Tax Committee Of the
Assembly is a bill which seeks 20 protect New
York City from unjust taxation amounting TO
hundreds of thousands Of dollars each year.
Through its legal and legislative representa-
tivcs the city has endeavored to have this bill
reported and passed. but without success
The Tribune has demonstrated very recently
that il holds the interests Of New York City
sbovc partisan msn9uvring, and as the
spokesman for the best thought in the party
now dominant at Albany it can present the
facts ] herewith submit with best hope Of
favorable action.
At cost Of approximately Sl66,00OOOo the
city is constructing the new Catskill water
supply system. OF this sum slol 936,Oos25
has already been expended outside the cor
porate limits Property has been acquired IN
four upstate counties, through condemnation
proceedings and under the law this property
is taxable for state and county, school ana
village taxes.
The total awards made for land outside the
city limits amounted to Sl0,209,946.8I. TINS
sum is obviously in excess Of the real value
Of the land. Land values seldom shrink IN
condemnation proceedings. 4\pLN iNhSNoiiNi'b
this, and in spite Of the fact that IN many
cases former improvements, such houses.
barns. etc. have been torn down, the prop
ertv for which the city paid Sl0,000.OOO was
assessed last year at S2100O00O, and taxes
amounting to S456 655954 were levied against
the City of New York.
Besides the Catskill aqueduct. the city owns
the Croton and Brooklyn water supply sys-
tens. The assessed valuation OF the citys
land in these two systems, situated OUTSIDE
the city. was S19,s27,323 in 1913. and the total
taxes levied against the city amounted 10
S22S. .S5948. Altogether, the total assessed
valuation of the land included IN the three
water supply systems, exclusive Of the aque-
duct itself and its appurtenances. was IN round
Numbers 100000 600. The taxes levied against
tho CITY on this land totalled S680,455.O2.
These figures will show the magnitude OF
the proposjtion represented by New York
Citv's lands outside the city limits. Let me
now indicate how the city IS being pllIaged
bv upstate assessors through unjust taxation.
Ono might suppose that because New York
City is carrying out a great and necessary
public work. in supplying millions OF people
with pure and plentiful supply Of water
that there would be no disposition TO penal
izc il for its efforts in this direction. The
contrary however. is the case. Claims have
bccn fomcnted and actions multiplied against
the CITY. unconsc;onabe damages have been
awarded in many instances, and local boards
Of assessors have proceeded on the theory
that the CITY Of New York was organized TO
support the rest of the state
Let me quote few pertinent examples.
In the town Of Kent Putnam County, the
city owns 3 per cent Of the total acreage OF
the town. but it was taxed 4S per cent OF the
total taxes collected.
In the town of Patterson, Putnam County,
, the citv's land was assessed at S7383O an
| acre. The remainder OF the town was 'a%eu
at only sos acre.
In the town Of Carmel. Putnam County, the
citys land was taxed at 1920 an acre The
remainder of the town was assessed at S9i
an
In Wcstchcster County the same discrm-
nation is apparent. In the town OF Somers'
Wcstchester County, the city was taxed at
the rate of 1929 an acre, while the local tax
pavcrs we're called upon to raise only SO on
each acre of property. In Cortlandt' on
per cent Of the total area OF the town the
city paid 43 per cent of the taxes beng as
sessed sal 35468 on 820 acres OF land.
In one town the local assessors boldly
ignored the plain provision Of the law which
excludes the aqueduct-i. G, the pipes, blow
offs. etc.-from taxation, and increased the
assessed valuation of the city's land by
SI5776 900. which they naively declared was
the cost of constructing that part OF the
aoueduct lying thin their territory.
As Corporation Counsel l had this matter
taken to the courts, and this $4,000 600 item
was stricken out.
II is interesting. also, TO note the sudden
rise IN assessed valuation when upstate rOp-
erty passes from a local owner to the City Of
New York.
In 1909. Parcel SOB in the town of Mount
Pleasant was in private hands and as
sessed at 500 an acre That year it was sold
10 the City Of New York, and in 1910 il was
assessed at $500 acre, although not a
single change had been made save change
Of ownership.
Parcel sos was assessed in 1909 al 500 an
acre under private ownership. II as
sesscd in 1910 at $500 an acre under city
ownership.
Turning TO Ulster County, where very
considerable section has been materially i'm
proved and beautifed by the Ashokan Dam
Lake the situation is the same. In the town
Of Gardiner Parcel POI was known as the
Devo farm and consisted of 100 acres. The
city took SI2 acres Of this tract. In 1907 an
assessment of $4,000 was levied upon the en-
tire $50 acres. Upon the Slz acres which
the city bought the city was assessed S3225
in 1908 That is the city was asked to pay
on Sla acres practically what private owner
was asked to pay on 100 acres. In this town
the average assessment an acre was $lS'74
before the city bought lard. Subsequently
the assessment TO the City Of New York
jumped to 1915 an acre.
In the towns of Gardiner and Shawangunk
the assessors assessed the city at the cost
of reproducing the aqueduCt Although TINS
would have mean, that New York City would
be required to pay taxes on SlOl'OOO'oOo II
this rule were applied to the entire CatSklIi
aqueduct, the local justice sitting at Spee'a'
Term. ouashed writs of certiorsri issued 20
the City of New York This Office carried
the case 20 the Appellate Division and finally |
TO the Court Of Appeals, which struck this
assessment from the rolls as "tllegsl.'
\ heiiove that | have said enough to show |