Evening star., 1922-05-15

Dy compelling the assessors 10 assess
not merely nominally but actually al
the 100 per cent valuation? The CEN
sus figures suggest that this is done
nowhere else in the United states
What kind Of comparisons could pe
made when full valuation meant
SOM ethingin Washington which 1t dio
not mean in any other American cityl
\ \ ~
Why compel Washington assessors
to assess at full value when very few
American cities pretend to do it, and
none is actually doing It? The aim is
to have Washington reasonably as
sessed and taxed as compared with
other American cities. Why should
Washington's assessment basis be
made to exceed that Of the vast ma
5ority Of American cities?
The census Of 1912 shows that OF OF
1876 American cities having over 10000
population 1913 are assessed at less
than full valuation and 81 nominally
at full value. OF these So cities % are
in Massachusetts, IA in New Jersey
and IL in Ohio, leaving only IA in all
the rest Of the United States 6 Rhode
Island, 3 New York fout of II cities)'
2 Connecticut, 2 Kansas l Maryland,
New Hampshire, Pennsylvania and
l West Virginia). Thus only eleven
states contain any cities assessed at
full valuation and four Of these states
have only one each of such cities,
There are n6 cities with full valua-
th1rty-seven states, among which are
Alabama. Arkansas, California, Colo
rado, Delaware, Florida. Georgia, 1lli-
nois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Lou
isiana, Maine. Michigan. Minnesota.
Missouri. Montana. Nebraska. North
O
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas. Utah,
Virginia. Washington and Wisconsin:
why should the representatives OF
these thirty-seven states vote to
compel in Washington an assessment
valuation not exacted in any Of their
nome cities, Why should any south
ern congressman fix an assessment
basis at the capital which is not ap-
piled to any Of his constituents?
Why should any representative
from Kentucky or Iowa or Missouri
force upon the capital a burden-in-
the cities Of his state have repudi-
ated?
But not even the representatives of
states which have cities that report
the 100 per cent basis Of assessment
| should vote to increase the basis of
Washington's assessment, for the
comments of the census authorities
and a comparison of actual figures
indicate conclusively the unreliability
Of these statements of full valuation.
Forty-eight of the sixty-two cities
which report full valuations are in
three states whose laws compel such
nominal valuations. But If the as
| SCISSORS Of Newark or New York are
OF olra@ - t.
assessment to true value is they will
say Is or SIS per cent. and not 100 per
cent. Full assessment valuation is
nowhere the same as full valuation
for sale.
why should PENNSYLVANIA vote full
valuation for Washington when only
| one (Philadelphia) of its sixteen
cities even pretends to have such
valuation, and when the Philadelphia
assessor will tell you that the actual
assessment is very far from the true
value?
That the 100 per cent valuation is
| nominal only in many cases is OBJ
| vious from the slightest inspection
of the figures. Take Baltimore, for
instance, the one large southern city
which has a nominal 100 per cent
valuation. The Baltimore assessors
G912) report the full value of all the
real property in great, prosperous
| and wealthy Baltimore as $372,651.-
502. The Washington assessors re-
port that two-thirds Of the full value
of the assessed and taxed fraction of
Washington's real property Is $780,
322,4s7. which makes its full valua-
! tion on the 100 per cent basis $685.
4S3.730. or s122.s32,22s more than
wealthy. busy, industrial Baltimore,
with 226,7S4 greater population. The
same lesson is taught by comparison
| of Washington's two-thirds valuation
| of s330.322,4s7 with the full 100 per
| cent valuations of Newark, s301,209,-
| 664. and Jersey City, $190,S57,512. OF
! course. it is absurd to suggest that
| the full valuation of real property in
such cities as Newark and Jersey City
| is in reality less by millions than the
two-thirds assessed valuation of real
property in the taxed fraction OF
Wa shington.
| Hardly anywhere else in the United
States, NO matter what the nominal
assessment rate Of valuation may be
| is realty actually assessed SO close
| today.
Prior to the act of 1902 requiring
not less than two-thirds valuation
the law enacted in 1888 required land
to be assessed at its true value. 1t was
/ found, Assessor Richards testifies
that values assessed under this law
were "some Of them one-tenth, some
one quarter, some two-thirds, but
| none of them seemed to be up to the
full valuation. Most of them, how
ever, were close to the two-thirds
! mark. So Congress passed an act
recurring that hereafter none OF
these assessments should be less than
two-thirds of the true valuation"
The proposition now is to return to
| the old law of 1888. requiring true
value assessments, under which these
widely varying underassessments
| were made.
The tendency in the United States
Is away from the false pretense OF
] full valuation assessments. Between
! 1910 and 1912 Ohio by a state law re-
| quired it's cities to make full valua-
! ton assessments. The Ohio cities
thus coerced, were the only. cities
! with nominal full valuation in 1912
that had not full valuation in 1910.
On the other hand, some cities in
! five states exercising their right to
| choose in the matter have abandoned
| the false pretense of full valuation
! and announced a lower percentage
I These states are New York, Con-
| necticut, Kansas, Michigan and Iowa
and the last two states are left with
out any cities whatsoever of 100 per
cent assessment valuation. The cities
passing from full to a lower valua-
| ton include Detroit, New Haven, AL.
| bany, Topeka, Dubuque, Troy and
Cedar Rapids.
There is an advantage in having
the assessment standard uniform for
! all the cities of state, as is pro-
| vided in Massachusetts, New Jersey
| and Ohio. Uniform and not neces-
| sarily full valuation is the virtue in
| these statutes.
To cause the District to enjoy the