Evening star., 1932-02-02

1t showed that the taxables Of frac-
ton of Washington's area, with popu-
lation of distinctly moderate means and
lacking costly industrial plants, ex-
ceeded in value the taxables of larger,
richer ST. Louis; that they approx
mated those of Newark and Indianapo-
lis combined that they were greater
than those Of Minneapolis, New Orleans
and indianapolis combined. This showed
conclusively, of course, that other cities
were underaSseSSed in relation to Wash
ington. If the same standards OF as
seSsment were applied elsewhere that
are applied here, it would be out Of
the question to believe that the taxa
bles of Washington would exceed those
of Baltimore, Pittsburgh or Buffalo.
Causes of Our High Standard.
There are several obvious reasons
why Washington has higher standard
of assessment valuation and 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 assess
ments the factor of political and per-
Sonal favoritiSm and certain percent
age of underaSSeSsment. Especially in
regard to business properties is this
inevitable and expected. In Washing
ton, where the assessor is not elected
or appointed by the taxpayers, and Is
not responsible to them or to any fac
ton among them, underassesSmentS on
political grounds or through personal
favoritiSm are practically eliminated.
In many other cities there is constant
pressure by dominating taxpayers to
reduce or avoid assessments, in Wash
ingtOn the assessor has been subjected
to a series of proddingS by non-taX-
paying members of Congress, the Dis
trict'S 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 busi-
ness properties which, in accordance
with the habit elsewhere, have been
assumed to be underaSSeSSed.
In some States gross inequalities OF
assessment have been confessed in the
different counties of the State and in
the assessment districts 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, especially Of tangible per-
sonal property. are thus grossly under
valued in the counties and hidden in
the cities. In Washington an assessor
of long experience, honest and capable,
has been able to apply high standard
of assessment with approximate uni
formity to all parts of the compact
area to be assessed, and with high
degree of fullneSS of inclusion OF tax
able properties upon the assessment roll.
The relation of assessed to true values
in Washington has been aSCertained and
proven to be close by periodical COM
pariSCnS on a large scale of prices OBJ
tanned in actual sales Of property with
the assessment valuations Of the same
property.
The assessorship here is stable not
fiuCtuatng with municipal elections.
The system of assessment which our
assessor has developed in Washington
is scientific. tending toward uniformity,
accuracy and equity OF assessment. 1t
contrasts with the haphazard assess
ments, lacking uniformity, that are
prevalent elsewhere in the United
States. Our assessors system, tested
periodically as TO accuracy by cOmpari-
son with sales prices. is that approved
by the census authorities and by the
Congressional Joint Fiscal Committee
in 1915.
In the light of these facts il is not
surprising that whenever comparative
assessments and tax burdens are thor
0ughly and scientifically tested, whether
by the census authorities las In 1922
or by congressional committees, as in
1915 and later years or by the Bureau
of Efficiency in 1888 and 1880, the
District assessment is placed near the
top of the list in proximity to true val
uatiOn. and its tax burden is found to
be adequate or excessive"