Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-03-26
The 1876 Per Cent Limitation.

The 10 Per Cent Limitation.
The current District appropriation
act removed one of the serious causes
Of delay in purchase of sites for school
buildings by inserting the proviso that
the money appropriated should be
''made Immediately available without
limitation as to price based on assessed
value fer the purchase of such sites"
That simple phrase was the result OF
several years experience with the So
called 125 per cent limitation placed on
prices paid for these school sites. 1t
probably tied up the business Of buying
land more than anything else. If the
District authorities were not able to
reach an agreement with the owners of
property for sale at a price within twenty
I'VE per cent above the assessed value,
the deal was placed In the hands Of q
condemnation jury. And If the jury
awarded a price still in excess OF the
limitations, the authorities were forced
to go back TO Congress to obtain APP
proval and the necessary money to
meet the condemnation price.
Much the same thing is going on in
respect to the purchase of i've parcels
Of land for the arboretum. The owners
held their land at price In excess OF
twenty-five per cent above the assessed
value. The condemnation award was
still In excess of the twenty-five per
cent limitation. The controller general,
In q decision just announced, declares
that the Department Of Agriculture.
which Is negotiating for the land, can
not buy it now at the condemnation
1uYys appraisal. but must 80 back to
Congress and seek specific authorization.
such authorization doubtless win be OBJ
tanned, but ct the price Of long delay,
which win further. retard the already
ong-drawn-out proceedings for acqui-
sition and development Of an arboretum
IA project that has been favored By
Congress and which In time VIII be
realized.
It Is time that the so-called 125 per
cent limitation rule be thrown out en-.
tlrely by Congress for the simple rea-
son that It does not work and It win
not work. Assessments In washington,
By law and by the careful and con-
ecientIcus efforts Of the assessor, are In
theory based on actual value. Sometimes
they exceed the actual value and some
times they fall below actual value. But
the appraisal Of property for tax as
eeasment obviously cannot take into
consideration the many real factors
that actually determine q sales value.
The assessment cannot take into con-
sideration the present value Of lard,
which e one thing, and the value Of
the land to an owner who is holding
g as an investment. It cannot take
into consideration the premium de-
unanded by an owner to overcome his
disinclination to sell. And the only
reasonable way to fix the price Of land,
when the parties to the sale cannot
agree, Il to follow the traditional pro-
eedure Of leaving the price to a dis
interested third party.
The value Of the land desired By the
Government for the arboretum was
nxed at s134,45S.66 by the condemna-
ton fury, although the assessed value,
plus IS per cent, was only s64,5l3.75.
As 90 often happens, the Department
Of Agriculture might have been able
70 buy the land at less cost than the
condemnation award, for the condem-
nation award sometimes exceeds even
the price demanded by the owner.
The Government must either place
IA the hands Of its agents the power
to decker for land and pay the price
that in their Judgment seems fair,
holding them responsible, Of course, fU
their decisions, or else leave the matter
in the hands Of condemnation juries.
A valuation for purposes OF tax assess
nnent and q valuation for purposes Of
sale are two different things, and no
law can combine them TO serve the
purpose Of an infiexible and arbitrary
appraisal. The sooner the attempt Is
abandoned the better it will be. If the
condemnation awards are too high,
Congress may satisfy itself as TO their
fairness by examining each one in de-
tail and reviewing the findings of the
suries.