The Ocala evening star. [volume] (Ocala, Fla.) 1895-1943, 1919-08-02
TAXES AND BACK TAXES

lowing from Alderman Thomas which
we print with great pleasure, as, be-
ing both emphatic and amusing, it is
interesting, and, the war being over,
we grab with avidity at stuff with
spice in it. True it is that Mr..
Thomas is rather rough on us and
some of the other boys, but as he
hangs his own name to his communi-
cation we much prefer it to any of
those sly or abusive screeds signed
"Citizen," "Voter," etc. It is too late
in the day for us to answer Mr..
Thomas, but one day next week we
shall try in our feeble way to show
him where he has erred. Mr.. Thomas
says:
Editor Star: Under date of July
26, there appeared the following in
the editorial columns of the Ocala
Star:
eve have heard good deal of crit
.icism from our citizens about the ac-
tion of the council at it's melting of
June II in accepting $1575 for three
years back taxes on the Ocala House.
We heard only few scattering re-
marks about it for the first few days
after the said meeting, but since then
the volume of discomfort has so in
creased that we can hardly avoid
mentioning it. 1t does seem like
1856 is a ridiculously small amount
for property like the Ocala House to
pay for three years, and the unfair
ness of the matter lies in the fact
that much other property in the city
is assessed higher in proportion-if
the Ocala House assessment is cut
down, all should be- cut down. There
are not a few property owners that
are not obtaining enough revenue
from their property to pay taxes and
insurance and keep up repairs. The
truth of the matter is that majority
of the council was against accepting
such an inadequate sum. There were
only three aldermen-Messrs. Winer,
Goldman and Thomas-present at the
meeting referred to. Mr.. Winer voted
against the reduction. We understand
that Messrs. McIver and Osborne,
both of whom were out of the city,
were opposed to accepting less than
$4,000"
Of course, it is not necessary to
read between the lines to see that the
editor censors Councilman Goldman
and myself and insinuates that we
took advantage of the absence of
Councilmen McIver and Osborne to
put the matter over. 1t is quite true
that Mr. Goldman and myself were
the only ones that voted in favor of
accepting Mrs. Edwards proposition,
or gather her attorneys proposition,
of $1575 for three years back taxes.
and / would most certainly do the
same thing again. The fact of the
matter is that the Ocala House prop
erty was never assessed over a valua.
tion of $4,000 until four years ago
when they got set of boneheads and
smart-alecks on the council, who rails
ed the devil in a good many different
ways, besides raising the valuation Oh
the Ocala House property from $780,
600 to 100000 OF course, the owner
of the Ocala House property did not
feel that this was just and right
especially just at such a time, and
therefore refused to pay it. Now
then, the city has always had a ma
jority of fair-minded men on the
council practically ever since the
Ocala House was built and if the
property was not taxed on valua-
ton of over $4,000 when the house
was new and all of its store rooms
bringing in a handsome revenue and
the city in a prosperous condition
then why should the valuation be in
creased 100 per cent. when the prop
erty is all run down and practically
in dilapidated condition, and in con-
sideration of the fact, as every citizen
of Ocala knows, the Ocala House as q
whole had not taken in enough reve-
nue. for the past four years to much
more than pay the taxes on $4,000
valuation?
Now there is and has been members
of the city council who of course are