Evening star., 1932-02-05

Of the assessed to actual value for each
city Washington moved up near the
top Of the highaSsessment group and
was not far from the seven cities which
we're able to remain above 1t.
How Rates Compared.
Washington's rate remained at II in
the readjustment. The readjusted
rates of the seven cities ahead OF it
we're: Cleveland, 1882: Cincinnati
S1703; Lakewood, Ohio. $40 so; Lima
Ohio, sl968; Norfolk, $20l0; St Louis,
sl853 and Atlanta, sl705. This left
81 cities with lower tax rates than
Washington, ranging from Akron, Ohio
with $3.50. to Little Rock, Ark, Sl032.
And in this comparison the total tax
rates for the other cities included State
tax, which, for the reasons already
stated Washington has always con-
tended should not be in the equation
against it.
In the Municipal Review table Wash
jngton was credited with a hundred per
cent relation of assessed to true value,
and a number of other cities were thus
credited
In the discussion Of the subject in
The Star at that time it was pointed
out that this 100 per cent rating is
relative, not absolute, and implied that
Washington's assessment approxlmated
as closely to 100 per cent of true value
as the lower percentage relations re-
ported in respect to some other cites
approximated the true percentage rela-
ton. Therefore, relatively 10 other
cities. Washington was accurately cred
tied with full assessment valuation.
Washington's Ratio High.
In 1924 the Census Bureau reported
on wealth. debt and taxation in the
United States as of 1922, in connection
with which it studied the ratio OF as
sessed to true value in the States and
the District of Columbia. In this COM
parison Washington was ahead OF the
list of States, with a relation OF assessed
to true value on realty of 90.8.
If. in order to be doubly fair to other
cities. Washington makes a further re-
adjustment of its own tax rate by ap-
plying this 1922 Census Bureau per
centage of its assessed to true value, the
District rate of IT becomes 1914. When
this specially reduced Washington rate
of 1914 is used in the comparison II
nf the % low tax rate and high assess
ment cities were above the District ana
IL below it. But four OF the hlgher
cities were under Is and only lew
cents above Washington. ,.,
The closeness of these high assess
ment, low-taX-rate cities to eacn other
in the comparison is shown by the lact
that five of them were less than a.
foIr were between IA and Is, seven were
between Is and 16 Gncluding Wash
inpton at the doubly readjusted rate
of Is AZ. six were between 16 and ~
Uncluding. at II, Washingtons Munlcl-
nal Review rating, two we're between
II and l8, and five were above 10.
The Bureau Of Efficiency Inquiry.
Coming down to the situation in the
past few years, those who nave heio
that washington bears an equltapie
tax burden believe their contention Is
sustained when the satisfies complied
by the United States Bureau OF Ell
ciency for washington ana IA otner
large cities are analyZed and compared
The Ef1iciency Bureau prepared sta
tistical tables on the subject t"lce-nrst
in 1929 on the basis of the estimated
populations in 1928, and again last
year with actual population hgures haoe
available through the 1880 census.
On each occasion the Emclency bu-
resu tables compared the tax, revenue
and expenditures figures OF IA Clues pe-
tween 100000 and 100000 OF popuia-
ton with two WaShingtons: FrsC,
Washington with all Government prop
erty left out of the Calculation, secoiio
Washington including the taxaole value
of property actually used by the reoerai
Government in the conduct OF Cnoie
sans business here. Parks and Gov
ernment property used for the exclusive
benefit of washington were omitted IN
arriving at the value Of properly useo
bv the United States.
1t has been the contention OF the Ds-
trict all along that, although lts TAX
rate IS comparatively low, 1t observes
such a high standard OF assessments
that when the rate Is applied TO the
assessment an adequate tax burden
results.
Districts Low Tax Rate.
Looking at the ii cities used by the
Efficiency Bureau, none has as low
tax rate as the District, but in the 1873
report not one had as high per CAPITA
assessment of real property as WASH
ington with the assessed value OF FED
eral property included, and only one
(Boston) as high a per capita assess
ment as Washington with the Federal
property excluded. In the 1890 revision
of the figures not one had as high an
assessed valuation per capita, either for
real or for personal property, as either
of the Washingtons.
Leaving out the value of the Federal
property, Washington's assessed vafuaA
ton of real property sl,1ls,093,l6 1922
was greater than the corresponding val
uation of such larger and richer cities