Albuquerque morning journal., 1921-08-29

interest on investment In land,
taxes on cattle and improvements
high labor and transportation
costs, losses and cost of feeding
in poor grass years. There is nc
course of reasoning possible by
which 1t can be shown that, under
prevailing conditions or under
average conditions through a term
of years these lands are worth 1925
per acre for grazing purposes. If
the land cost $3.50 per acre the
owner is under interest charge of
at least 10 cents per acre for own
ing it, which with taxes makes a
total carrying charge of 18 cents
per acre, which is more than the
business can possibly stand.
That the state itself recognizes
the truth of the above statement is
shown by the fact that 1t leases its
own grazing lands at five cents
per acre from year to year or for
| five year periods, thereby placing
it on value of not to exceed 81
per acre. 1t is to be assumed that
the state, in determining the rent
al, desired to get as much as it
could and placed the rental at as
high point as it was believed the
stock man could or would pay.
There Is to say the least some in
consistency shown when, on the
one hand state-owned land is rent
ed at five cents per acre and ad-
joining privately land of
similar character, Is assessed at
1925 per acre and subjected to g.
tax of eight cents per acre. One
of two things Is manifest--either
the state is not getting an adequate
rental or the private owner is be-
ing overtaxed. 1t Is pretty gem
orally admitted that the state could
not get more than five cents per
acre rental for much Of its land.
1t may be admitted that the pri-
.vately owned grazing tracts
throughout the state are more val
liable than the state lands, for the
reason that the privately
lands were often selected when
choice of the best available lands
was possible. 1t is also true that
certain and uninterrupted control
of tract throughout a long term
of years which is assured by own
ership adds to its value. But no
such discrepancy between the value
of the two classes of land Is justi-
fled as is indicated by state rental
on the one hand and state valuation
for taxation purposes on the other,
The present system of arbitrarily
placing valuations on grazing lands
by zones or districts, while cer-
tainly a step in advance over form
er methods, is neither scientific
nor just. 1t is entirely possible for
individual tracts in the districts
where the higher assessments pre-
vail to be worth less than the aver
age, and for tracts in the more
moderately assessed zones to be
worth more. 1t would seem that
the proper procedure would be
for each grazing land tract to be
assessed according to its carrying
Gated. 1t would also be entirely
proper that the deduction for
waste land, now fixed arbitrarily
at 10 per cent should be made ac-
cording to the amount of such land
actually existing. If there is no
waste land, there should be no
deduction; If there is more than
10 per cent the deduction should
De made accordingly.
Now that open and free range
conditions, in many parts of the
state at least, have been obliterat-
ed, 1t should. 1 think. be recognized
that without improvements in the
way of watering facilities (wind-
mills, tanks, ete.). fencing and
necessary buildings, the lands pri-
vately owned and used for grazing
purposes only, would have but lit
tie or no value. 1t is, therefore.
wholly illogical and unjust to as
sess such improvements separately
and in addition to the land assess |
ment itself. 1t is these improve
ments which give to or make avail
able the carrying capacity of the
land which alone justifies anything
more than a nominal value for it.
The improvements such as | speak
of are part of the realty and are
appurtenant to the land itself, and
should be considered as an element
in the value determined for the
tract as grazing land.
1t is proper to consider the bur-
den placed by taxation upon the
output from grazing land in COM
parison with the burden upon the |
output from other classes of land.
We have always contended that |
the output is one of the elements
which should be properly taker |
into consideration in appraising the |
value of any property though not
the only element. In some coun- /,
ties where grazing land is assessed |
at 1925 per acre the best alfalfa |
land with adequate water right is |
assessed at 800 per acre. One |
hundred acres of alfalfa land will |
be assessed at $4,000 and 5000 |
acres of grazing land at approxi-
mately the same figure. The 100 !
acres of alfalfa land will produce
on the average $50 tons of alfalfa,
worth on the average SIS per ton,
or $5.250 gross. At twenty-five |
acres per head the 5000 acres of |
grazing land will support 210 cows. |
Estimating the average increase at |
20 per cent. which is high. the out |
put would be eighty-four calves, |
the average value of which as year.
lings, counting both steers and |
heifers, cannot be placed above |
$25 per head or total Of $2,100.
1t may reasonably be assumed that |
the taxes which the stockman pays
upon his cattle will about offset |
the taxes which the farmer pays on |
the Improvements on his 100 acres
alfalfa farm, so that the total taxes |
levied against each of the two
properties will be about equal. At
present rates the taxes are not less
than $3.50 on each property, and |
this amounts to IL per cent on the
total gross income from the graz
ing land and Az per cent of the
total gross income from the alfalfa
land; in other words the grazing
land is assessed relatively about
two and half times as high as the
alfalfa land. If the above COM
parison were made on the basis of
net profits instead of gross re-
turns, the discrimination against
the grazing land would probably be
still more striking, inasmuch as
practically the entire crop of al
falfa can be sold each year, where