Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1930-12-05
FEDERAL PROPERTY
COSTS DEPLORED
Assessor Cites Price In
CreaSes When Needed Land
Is Condemned.

Continued From First Page)
msnt award was just twice this figure,
or $4,000.
without naming the particular site
or owners, Mr.. Richards said that one
woman who had commended She was
making a living in her property as a
rooming house and did not know where
else to move on account of high prices,
had received $4,000 for piece of
property which had sold, according to
the record of the last prior sale, for
| $4,000.
All these figures pointed, Mr.. Rich
ards said, to the conclusion that con-
demnation brings about twice the price
OF previous sale and on the Supreme
Court site about 1913 per cent of the
assessment.
Asked about the price paid for Con-
gresS Hall, which was torn down to
make way for the new House Office
Building, Mr.. Richards named the figure
of $733,000 as the price the Govern
ment had paid. Mr.. Richards said that
the assessment on this property was
only about half that amount and had
been fixed after showing by the prop
erty owner.
Discuss Potomac Hotel Case.
Mr.. Richards spent some time dis
cuSsing the case of the Potomac Hotel
which was also on the site of the House
ONCE Building. He discussed the par
ticipation of Henry H. Classic, special
assistant to the Attorney General, in
the Potomac Hotel matter, declaring
that Classic at one time had placed the
figure of 100000 on the Potomac
Hotel. but said the Government finally
paid less than that.
In the Reno subdivision, near Thirty
eighth and Ellicott streets, Mr.. Richards
said some property which had been
assessed at about 20 cents a foot was
acquired by condemnation for q price Of
about 40 cents foot,
Contrary to the predictions of a local
lawyer and real estate man, who said
that 1t would cost the. Government not
less than 100000 and maybe $12,-
100000, for the four squares, Mr..
Richards expressed the opinion that
the municipal government would be able
to purchase them for $4,000, 600.
Chairman Mapes, coming back to the
question OF condemnations again, asked
Mr.. Richards point blank :: is the Gov
ernment's case handled as well as the
private owners case?Y
7 wouldn't like to say" replied Mr..
Richards.
When asked why he was not called
as an expert witness at more con-
demnation hearings, Mr.. Richards re-
piled, II can't be witness, purchaser and
assessor all at the same time"
Calls 1920 Construction Cost Peak.
On opening his testimony, Mr.. Rich
ards again took up the discussion of
how he arrived at assessments of prop
erty and pointed out that actual values
were now much lower than in 1920,
which he described as the peak of high
est construction cost. He said that his
office made no attempt to change as
seSsment with f1uctuating sales from
year to year."
I'VE make no attempt to strike the
highest peak of sales he said, land
we don't attempt to strike the lowest
of them"
Mr.. Richards wound up his testimony
for the day by explaining statistical
table comparing the assessed value. of
real estate in Washington with 80 other
cities having population under 1,000,-
900 persons. This table showed that
the assessment In the District Is close
to full value when compared with the
average in these 80 cities.
Mr.. Richards will resume his teSti-
mony when the committee reconvenes
oOuAOAAOW a1 OsTO " NAOChy al
the meantime, after the committees
instruction he will prepare written
statement showing how he arrived at
the comparative assessment figures.
Thomas F. Murphy, assistant chief
Of the United States Bureau of Eff
cheney, also is expected to be called as
witness at the hearing tomorrow
He will explain the bureaus latest re-
port on the fiscal relationship between
H. r. sr,Iaa d. A,
on an exhaustive comparison of tax
methods in Ia cities.