The times-news. [volume] (Hendersonville, N.C.) 1927-current, 1933-03-09
LETTERS TO
THE EDITOR
Editor, Times-News:


Some few days ago | signed a
postal card requesting our senator
and representative 70 have Hen
derson county added to the Bun
combe county bill which provided
for revaluation of properly. l
knew at the time that there was a
bill pending that would be state
wide in its operation if passed,
allowing a maximum Of one-third
reduction. horizontally, in tax as
sessments. | was Of the opinion
then, and am of the same opinion
now, that if this bill, now an act.
makes proper provision for an
equalization of values or is SUI
ficiently wide of the mark Of
strictly horizontal requirements
as to allow equalization so long as
a one-third reduction, or not in
excess of it, is arrived at. it will
be better to follow the provisions
of this act than to seek to hav8
Henderson county excluded 'fSDr$
it's operations and put under thf
provisions of the Buncombe cOun-
ty measure.
Nv reason for requesting re-
valuation is that no requirement.
for horizontal cut only IS IN the
spirit of or conformity with the
constitutional rights OF every
property owner to have his prop
erty assessed at its true value III
money, irrespective of what the
resulting tax rate might be. Amt
again for the fear that the varl-
Gus counties of the state, through
their commissioners, would under
take to avail themselves of the
provision for putting into effect &
cut much less than the maximum
allowed, not on the basis of the
actual cash value of the property
in the county, but on the basis OF,
maintaining the present financial
set-up, which set-up is the out
growth of inflated values whereby
governmental expense has been
increased for various and sundry
agencies. good in themselves, per
haps, but beyond ordinary ability
of a sound taxing policy to sup
port.
I fear many people do not un-
derstand correctly the meaning Of
maintaining high valuations or low
valuations. But aside from the
constitutional rights involved there
are several problems to cope with
in either direction. AS to Hender-
son county, what information
have of the matter leads me 10
believe that ultimately we shall
be worse off if we try to maintain
values above common sense lev
ell, irrespective of the tax rate. IF
we should cut our values just one
third, or the maximum under the
new law, we would not thereby
directly effect one cent saving IN
the amount of money we would
have 60 contribute as taxes. The
tax rate would merely advance in
proportion to produce the same
number of dollars. We would be
in exactly the same position If
the reduction were one-fourth or
one-fifth, CT any other amount
less than what the assessment is
now. The tax rate would rise just
| in the proportion to the reduction
| in per cent. Of cut in assessed
values.
As see it, the degree of relief
to be obtained is incorporated in
the idea that low valuations
(which should be in conformity as
far as possible with true valuesl
would tend to discourage high cost
of government. because the lower
the values the sharper the advance
| in rate and the surer the detec-
ton on the part of the people to
Increased cost of government, and
on the present basis lower valua.
tions would be calculated to argue
strongly for increased economy.
The present law does not pro-
Ivide the machinery under which
there will ever be anything like a
maximum of satisfaction with any
revaluation arrived at under it.
Neither is it probable the commits
sioners under that section of the
law creating them q board of
equalization and review will evey
measurably satisfy the people as
to their work in equalization.
| However, l am persuaded to be-
llieve that so long as that law ex.
lists we can more nearly approach
satisfaction through the horizontal
70 ~.