Brownsville herald. [volume] (Brownsville, Tex.) 1910-current, 1929-11-10
Creager Writes Letter
on Tax Board Hearing

10 Inc herald.
you have given a good deal of
publicity to the differences between
the Gateway Bridge company and
the Brownsville Board of Equaliza-
ton ON the valuation TO be placed
upon Bridge properties for the pur-
pose Of taxation. Your informa-
ton, as published. has az times
been entirely erroneous. The only
question between the parties is as
TO how much OF the Bridge proper
ties are taxable by the City. 1t IS
fundamental that the City can tax
no real property that lies beyond
itsboundaries. In other words. 1t Is
only such real estate as lies within
the city limits that can be legally
taxed by the City.
The boundary Of the City is Civ
en- In the City Charter as the
North bank Of the Rio Grande." il
Is the Bridge company's contention
that only that part Of its proper
ties lyirg on the City side OF the
North bank of the Rio Grande are
taxable. and that all those parts Of
its properties lying outside OF the
North bank Of the river cannot be
legally taxed by the City.
There is no controversy as 70
the valuation OF the Company's Of
flee building and the land 1t occu-
pies.
1T requires only a glance at the
bridge structure 10 show that the
pier on the American side Of the
river is not on or within the North
bank OF the Rio Grander and con-
s%equently IL is not within the City
limits. II was shown in evidence
before the Board Of Equalization.
and Is an unqueStionabie fact. that
a large part Of the land lying be-
tween this pier and the high bank
of the river Is a part Of the Fort
Brown Military Reservation. In
other words. property belonging 20
the United States government in
terposes between this pier and the
City limits. Thus. not only Is the
pier outside of the City limits. but
a large part CT the shore approach
running from this pier to Four
tenth street. Is on United States
government property and conse-
Quently not taxable by the City.
in your issue Of November 9Th.
o state 1T was definitely deter
mined that both piers Of the bridge
rest on City property. and support
this hy the statement that air
right or easement acquired by the
Bridge company from the United
States Government (war depart
ment provides that no piers be
placed on Government property.
The first statement Is entirely err
runeous and. 70 the contrary. II
was definitely shown that the pier
on the North or American side OF
fhe river does not rest on City
mrorVrty. OF course. II is absurd
IN even talk about the pier on the
Mexican side being on City prop
ertv. The second statement as TO
the condition in the easement from
the war department is correct. and
because Of the terms Of that ease
mcnt. the Bridge company was
compelled 10 place its north pier.
not where ii desired 10 place II. on
the bank Of the river. but farther
out IN the river beyond the line OF
the Fort Brown Military properties.
thus. As stated. leaving q part Of
the government property interpoS-
Ing between the Bridge pier ana tne
City line.
80 summarize. the Bridge COM
uany's contention Is:
sist. That no real property stu
ated without the limits Of the City
Of Brownsville ar be taxed by the
and. That the City limits line,
beyond which its jurisdiction for
taxation and other purposes does
not reach. Is the North bank OF the
Rio Grande. which lies between the
north pier and the City.
~3rd. That the United states
Government CFort Brown OWLS a
large part Of the property lying De-
tween the pier and the nigh bank
AZ the river: that neither the pier
mo- that part OF the approach stu
afed above United States Govern
ment property can be taxed BY the
CITY As same are outside the City
limits. that the City has the right
~ tax only that part Of the ap-
nrnach which does lie within the
CITY limits and which. as compar-
"a with that portion Of the entire
structure lying on the American
side Of the Rio Grande, IS utterly
Insignificant.
VERY truly yours.
~nEAEWn