Evening star., 1934-05-13
Was1';ngton's Ta* Again Sho'cn
Hig1, IN Relation to Other Cities
Assessor Richards Figures Euen More
Striking When State Taxes and Debt
Payments Are Equitably Eliminated
From the Comparison.

loans, Of which the benefits have been
and are being enjoyed. Washington,
which has enjoyed the benefit OF no
loans, should not be required in order
to put itself on a taxpaying equality
with other cities to tax itself In the
payments. and they should be de.
Quoted from the property tax levies
Of all the cities in a comparison with
Washington Of the cost of current
maintenance.
Taxation to Pay Interest on Loans.
During the World War and immedi-
ately thereafter very many American
cities INDUCED in q financial jag, bor-
rowing easily and heavily from our
Over-rich investors in tax-exempt mu-
nicipal securities In avoidance of in.
come taxes and surtaxes. Part Of this
borrowed money went into useful per-
manent improvement by which the
cities benefited; another part was
wasted in extravagance or graft. Con-
gressmen, whose home cities thus
heavily and in many instances un-
wisely borrowed, refused as Washing
tons Legislature to let 1t borrow at all.
1t results that the taxpayers of
these cities. having enjoyed the bene-
fit OF these loans, are now compelled
to tax themselves to pay interest and
sinking fund on the loans, and these
items increase the amount of their
property tax levy, and Of their tax
rates. which in q way set the pace for
Washington. But why should WASH
ington taxpayers, who have enjoyed
the benefit Of no loans, be required to
pay on . basis which coordinates
them In per capita and total pay.
ments and in tax rate with cities
which are compelled to raise millions
in taxes to pay interest?
Washington, which has enjoyed the
benefit Of no loans, should not be re-
quired in order to put itself on . su-
perhcial taxpaying equality with other
cities TO tax itself in the amounts rep
resented by these interest payments,
and they should be deducted from the
property tax levies Of these other
cities and from the corresponding tax
rates in = comparison with Washing
ton.
Debt Figure Varies.
Assessor Richards presented to the
Senators a table showing the indebt-
edness in 4e cities-running all the
way from $4,340, 900 in Peoria, ILL.,,
to the stupendouS sum of S2,836, ,25S,-
573 in New York City. No effort was
10 -
Of per capita. But If the suggested
IS per cent Representing indebted
ness) had been eliminated from the
per capita real estate tax of other
cities, along with State taxes, WASH
ington's per capita realty burden
would, Of course. been far in excess of
that Of other cities.
This procedure was followed by the
Citizens Joint Committee on Fiscal
Relations In its comparisons of tax
burdens and applied to a list Of the
g. cities Of the United States which
exceeded 5000 in population. The
result was to show Washington's to-
tai current tax burden as being ex-
ceeded by only seven cities.
A significant comparison made by
the Citizens Joint Committee was be-
tween st. Louis, Baltimore, Minneapo-
lis. New Orleans, Indianapolis and
Richmond. st. Louis was chosen be-
cause it Is a large, progressive, Mid
western metropolis; Baltimore and
Richmond were the two nearest large
cities: Minneapolis and New Orleans
come nearest approximating WASH
ington in population and Indianapo-
lis is typical. progressive city. In
this comparison Washington's per
capita taxes and special assessments
were greater than any of the other
cities; its per capita revenue receipts,
less all subventions, grants, donations,
gifts and assessments. were greater
than those Of any Of the other cities
compared.
Comparison in Total Figures.
But the simplest, and possibly the
most striking comparison, was be-
tween Washington and the cities
nearest Washington in size-a COM
parison that dealt in total figures and
not per capitas. Washington, with
a smaller land area than either Of
these two cities New Orleans and
Minneapolis) had a total property
assessment about twice as great as
theirs combined; its real estate and
total tax levy were higher, and its
revenues, less subventions. grants. do
nations, gifts and assessments, were
higher.
Washington's high assessment Of
real estate property Is forcefully dem
onstrated by the figures which Mr..
Richards prepared for the Senators.
OF the 2l cities compared with
Washington Qeaving out New York;
the local real estate assessment of
only four Of them-Philadelphia, De-
troit, Boston and Pittsburgh-ex-
ceeded that of Washington. The
realty assessments of five of them,
all larger than Washington-St. Louis,
Baltimore. San Francisco. Milwaukee
and Buffalo-were less than that Of
washington.
High Assessment Here.
Every comparison Of washington's
assessment with that of other cities
has always produced the same result.
Washington Is undoubtedly the most
thoroughly assessed city of the coun-
try. And while its assessment has
usually been compared with that Of
other cities, L. A. Carruthers. chair
man Of the Federation of Citizens
Associations committee on fiscal
relations, recently produced sta
tistics to show that its assessed valua-
ton of taxable real estate property
Is greater than that of any one Of
25 States-Maine, New Hampshire,
Vermont, Rhode Island, Iowa, North
Dakota, Delaware, West Virginia,
South Carolina, Georgia. Florida, Ala
bama. Mississippi. Arkansas, Louisi-
ana, Montana, Idaho. wyoming, Colo
RADIO, New Mexico, Arizona. Utah, Ne
vada, Washington and oregon.
In this small area Of the District
less than 10 miles SQUARES centered
more tax exempt property than any
city of the country. The taxable por-
ton of this area, which cannot be
utilized for large industries, is given
over mainly to residential develop
ment. And on this remaining area
there Is an assessment Of property for