Perth Amboy evening news., 1923-05-24
VALUE OF IMPROVED AND UN1MpRovED PROPERTY

The Evening News has received a copy OF d lelleL F'HNn -"
South Amboy man wrote to the mayor and council of that city
which furnishes much food for thought. The letter complains of
what is claimed to be discrimination in assessing property for tax
alton. The writer of the letter says a valuation of 5000 has been
placed on his property which, he says, is "yacant and unlm
.~ proved" whereas a corner lot of the same block on which Is
located a large building, store and garage, all Of which bring
revenue to the owner, is valued at 800. There is another lot, the
letter sets forth, located on the same block, on which is a large
two family house and garage which is assessed at 1913. 1t is to be
presumed that all the lots are the same size and that the valuations
here mentioned are for the land only.
The writer Of the letter goes on to say: Anyone with the
slightest idea of assessing valuation of lots knows that %unimprovcd
vacant lots are never assessed as high as improved lots with build
ing, etc, on them
But why should there be any difference in the assessment OF
the land, whether there are buildings on it or not? 1t is not the
land itself that is bringing in the revenue to the owner that the
writer of the letter speaks about. His revenue comes from the
rent Of te buildings that he has erected on the land. If the land
alone produced any revenue then the man with the vacant lot
would have a revenue the same as the other owners of property
IN that block. Putting a building on a lot does not increase the
value of the lot itself. 1t may increase the value of the property
s. a whole. but the increased value does not come until the I'M
provement IS made; the land value cannot under any circum
stances. be changed.
is the location, not improvements that determines lana
values. Naturally, a lot 100 feet square is worth more in New
York City than is the same size lot in the middle OF a 100 acre
farm out in the country. But the 100 foot lot in New York, even
though it may have a s~kyscraper built upon it, is no more valuable
as far as the land itself is concerned, than the lot adjoining
which may be vacant. Either lot can be equally developed, the
increased value of the property as a whole comes in the kind Of
development that takes place. \ one-story shack would not be as
valuable as a ten-story building, but that is not the fault OF the
land on which the two buildings stand side by side.
But there is another interesting point in the letter that the
South Amboy property owner has sent TO the council OF that city,
and that is what the development that takes place on a piece Of
land means to the city and to society in general 1t will be noted
that the writer of the letter claims that other lots IN his block
which are developed are not assessed as high as his lot that is u-I
improved and vacant. But let us ask, who Is doing the most for
his community, the man who takes the property he owns and in
vests his money in buildings thereby helping to build up the city,
increase the housing capacity, or establish industry whereby work
is furnished for many hands, or the man who let's his land lie idle,
doing absolutely nothing with it that will benefit the community,
but all the time seeing its value increased by the enterprise Of
others all about him? In other words, why should a man who
spends his money to improve his property and thereby benefit the
community. be penahzed for so doing by having his taxes increased,
while the man whose property is utterly unproductive and who
does nothing to help the community grow and develop, receive his
reward by low taxes?
It gets right back to the land tax again. 1t Is plain that our
present method of taxation is unjust. As said at the beginning, the
ssvalue of the land as far as the land alone is concerned, is the same
regardless of the kind of building there is on it, or even if there is
.ano building at all. Then why not tax all land alike according to
its location, and make it high enough so that there need be no tax
on the buildings at all. This would force the indolent and indiffer-
emit property owner, who is growing rich by letting his property
remain idle while others build up the city, to invest his money also
and develop his property so IS to obtain some revenue from it.
1t is the old story of the parable of the ten talents. The man
j who took his one talent, which might have been a vacant lot, and
buried it in a napkin, or, in other words, did nothing with it, was
rebuked for his slothfulness and indifference, whereas the man who
made use of his talents and doubled his possessions by his work
and enterprise, was rewarded. Why should a man who lets his
s property lie idle year after year while progress is being made all
about him, expect to receive more consideration than the man who
4lMlJ1 and Iouolope boInipO+ 70 nnla +ha onruYpir, n hnnar o1
sSs better pace to live in?
- With a tax on the land alone all would be taxed alike and the
owner would be free to build as he saw fiji, not only adding to his
personal income, but greatly benefitng the community as a whole.
III decidedly unfair to have some people do all the building and
boosting, being heavily assessed therefor, while others do nothing,
bnt see their property increase in value because of the enterprise of
he other fellow, and escape with comparatively little tax to pay.