Evening star., 1926-03-24

its total tax burden is on a level
with those Of other cities. Washing
toms property assessment should be
low In comparison with other cities.
No other city has so much property
exempt from assessment and taxation
as Washington with its hundreds Of
millions OF exempted Government
property. Washington is denied the
millions of taxables in the shape OF
great industrial plants which the
large commercial cities enjoy. Hero
Uncle Sam, exempt from taxation, Is
the great employer and industrial
plant owner. Since only fraction OF
Washington Is assessed and taxed,
and since its exempt fraction CON
tains its greatest industrial plants,
the assessed valuation of Washington
should be comparatively low. In fact.
however, owing to higher standards
of assessment and to the inclusion of
more taxables on it's assessment roll,
Washington heads the list among the
cities of Its size, and equals or sur
passes that Of many larger, richer
cities.
Causes Of Our High Standard.
There are several obvious reasons
why Washington has a higher stand
ard Of assessment valuation and a
fuller and more impartial application
Of that standard than most other
American cities. The assessors in
many other cities. politically elected or
appointed, confessedly inject into their
assessments the factor Of political and
personal favoritism and a certain per-
centage of under-assessment. Espe-
cially in regard to business properties
Is this inevitable and expected. In
Uyo oh vUtr
elected or appointed by the taxpayers.
and is not responsible to them or to
any faction among them, underassess-
ments on political grounds or through
personal favOrittsm are practically
eliminated. In many other cities there
is constant pressure by dominating
taxpayers to reduce or avoid assess
ments; in Washington the assessor
has been subjected to a series Of prod
dings by non-taxpaying members OF
Congress, the Districts legislature. in
successive years to higher and higher
assessments of different classes OF
property, now Of unimproved lands in
accordance with single-tax principles.
and now Of business properties which.
in accordance with the habit else
where, have been assumed to be un.
derassessed.
In some States gross inequalities
Of assessment have been confessed
in the different counties of the
State and in the assessment dis
tricts OF the same county or city. and
there has been noted a competition In
underassessment between city and
county districts in making up the
Joint assessment roll upon which State
taxes were to be levied. 1t is recorded
In official reports that millions, espe-
cially Of tangible personal property.
are thus grossly undervalued in the
counties and hidden in the cities. In
Washington an assessor Of long eXpe-
rience, honest and capable, has been
able to apply a high standard OF as
sessment with approximate uniformity
to all parts of the compact area TO be
assessed, and with a high degree OF
fullness Of inclusion Of taxable prop
critics upon the assessment roll. The
relation of assessed to true values in
Washington has been ascertained and
proven to be close by periodical COM
parisons on a large scale of prices OBJ
tained In actual sales Of property with
the assessment valuations Of the same
property.
The assessorship. here is stable. not
fluctuating with municipal elections.
The system Of assessment which our
assessor has developed in Washington
Is scientific. tending toward uniform
ity, accuracy and equity Of assess
ment. 1t contrasts with the haphaz-
ard assessments, lacking uniformity.
that are prevalent elsewhere in the
United States. Our assessors system.
tested periodically as to accuracy by
comparison with sales prices. is that
approved by the census authorities. by
the Congressional Joint Fiscal Com
mittee in 1915, and by former Repre-
sentative Evans in making a minority
report from the Joint Congressional
D. c. Surplus Committee.
In the light Of these facts it is not
surprising that whenever comparative
assessments and tax burdens are
thoroughly and scientifically tested,
whether by the census authorities las
in 1922 or by congressional COM.
mittees. as in 1915 and later years.
the District assessment is placed near
the top Of the list i'm proximity to true
valuation and its tax burden is found
to be adequate.