davidaulloa/AmericanStories huggingface dataset:
Evening star., 1936-04-08

40 bS SAPSSONAs Was boblC 40
of little use for comparative study
because the relation to true value to
assessed value varies greatly in the
different cities. However, the fact
that Washington heads the list would
indicate the probability that in Wash
ington property is assessed more
nearly at 100 per cent of the true value
than is the case with other cities. The
average per capita wealth in the
United States may be estimated at
S1,s84 after deducting tax-exempt
property. The fact that only five
cities out of the A show a per capita
assessed valuation in excess of this
amount shows that on the average
property must be assessed at far less
than its true value.
For a number of years up to and
including 1880. the Bureau Of Census
estimated the per capita true value
of property subject to the general
property tax. In table 9 Is shown the
estimated per capita true value for the
years 1924 and 1880 for all of the A
largest cities on which data is avail
able. The percentage Of increase or
decrease in these six years is also
given. The table follows:
TABLE 8.
ESTIMATED PER CAPITA TRUE VALUE
OF ASSESSED PROPERTY. Al LARGEST
CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
1924 AND 1880.
Gas Estimated by the Bureau OF Census.D
(Arranged in Order of Estimated Per Capita
True Value in 1930.)
Rank in
per capita Per capita Per capita, Per
true value true value. true value, cent in
1870 CITY 1924 1890 crease.
Evening star., 1936-04-08

CcIGL.
The following facts may be noted
from an examination of the above
table:
O Washington ranks sixth in the
percentage of Negro population, and
has a per capita tax burden more
than SO per cent greater than any Of
the five cities having a higher per-
centage of Negro population.
(2) Washington has a greater per
capita tax burden than any city in the
United States having a percentage of
Negro population of over 5 per cent.
The percentage Of Negro population
in Washington is 27.1.
(3) In general, cities with high per
capita tax burdens have a low per-
percentage of Negro population,
Washington being an obvious excep-
tion to this rule.
The above facts in connection with
the character of the population seems
sufficiently novel to justify further
analysis. Table (b), which follows,
has therefore been prepared to show
the per capita tax burden per white
inhabitant Of the forty-four largest
cities in the United States. The per
capita tax burden is arrived at, of
course, by dividing the tax burden
(both city and county, by the num-
Der of white inhabitants, leaving out
of account that portion of the popula-
tion made up of the Negro race, the
Chinese race, etc.
TABLE 5 (h).
PER CAPITA TAX BURDEN PER WHITE
INHABITANT FOR 1888. A LARGEST
CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
(Afranged in Order of Per Capita Tax
Evening star., 1936-04-08

The following facts should be noted
in connection with the above table:
~ Washingt0n's per capita tax
burden increased more from 1922 to
1888 than was the case with any other
of the forty-four largest cities in the
United States. The per capita tax
burden in Washington has increased
98.3 per cent, while the next largest
increase is found in the case Of Buff
falo, N. Y, where the percentage is
less than one-half as great, namely,
All per cent.
(2) Twenty-eight cities out Of the
forty-four show an increase in per
capita tax burden from 1922 to 1898,
while the other sixteen cities show q
decrease In per capita tax burden.
(3) In 1922 the per capita tax bur-
den In Warrington was below that Of
Evening star., 1936-04-08

The following points may be noted
from an analysis of the above table:
% In general, the cities which
rank high in density Of population
also rank high in tax burden.
co Washington is exceptional in
the list, ranking only twenty third
in density Of population and third in
tax burden. While having a density
of population of only 12.4 to the acre,
1t exceeds every other city in tax
burden which does not have q density
of population Of over $50 to the acre.
90 The cities of Los Angeles, Calf,
and New Orleans, La, are exceptional
in their large acreage. Los Angeles
includes territory so per cent larger
than the area of New York City. New
Orleans includes an area almost as
large as the City of Chicago. This
accounts for their low rank in density
of population.
(e) Relation of Tax Burden to
Character of Population.
Another factor which affects the
tax burden in a practical way Is the
character Of the population, that is
the extent to which it is made up
of native whites, foreign-born whites,
Negroes or other races.
Table S (a), which follows, has
been prepared to show, on the basis
of the 1880 census. the percentage
of native whites. foreign-born whites,
Negroes. and all other races in each
of the A cities under consideration
in comparison with the per capita
tax burden of those cities.
TABLE (a)
COMPARISON OF CHARACTER OF PoPU-
LATION WITH PER CAPITA CITY AND
COUNTY TAX BURDEN-1933. II
LARGEST CITIES IN THE UNITED
STATES.
(ArranKed in Order of Per Cent of Negro
Population.)
Evening star., 1936-04-08


Total---SI,577.I2 SI.6S7.01s939
Washington exceeds Baltimore 9 per cent
in real estate assessment; per cent in
personal property assessment: per cent in
total assessment.
II will be observed that the value Of
assessable real property in Washington
is estimated to be 8 per cent greater
than that of assessable real property
in Baltimore. In attempting to gauge
the probable accuracy or inaccuracy
of these estimates, it should be noted
that the gross area of Baltimore is
50,38l acres, while that Of Washing
ton is only 39,680 acres. The park
area in Baltimore has been estimated
at 3,440 acres and in Washington at
3,753 acres. The United States Gov
ernment property in Washington in
addition to the park areas totals
6.438 acres, not including city streets
running through such property or le-
cation, church and similar property,
which is tax exempt. On a COM
parable tax basis, therefore, Balti-
more has 46,941 acres and Washing
ton only 29,489. In other words, Bal
tim0re has q taxable land area SO
per cent greater than Washington, in
spite of the fact that the assessabIe
real estate is estimated to be worth 9
per cent more than that of Baltimore.
AS to the improvements on the land
area, it is well known that Baltimore
has valuable commercial water front
and also contains many valuable in
dustrial and manufacturing plants.
Washington has comparatively little
value in these two items.
AS far as personal property is con-
cerned, Washington is estimated to
have tangible and intangible base
per cent greater than Baltimore.
Baltimore, however, exceeds Wash
ington by IS per cent in population.
Twenty-seven and one-tenth per cent
of the population of Washington is
made up of Negroes, while only .17.7
per cent of the population of Baltimore
is made up of that race. 1t is also a
matter of common knowledge that
many of the large estates in WASH
from whom no intangible personal
property tax can be collected, while
in Baltimore the large estates are in
the vast majority of cases occupied
by residents.
In view Of the above, it is not be-
lieved that comparisons of the tax
rates in various cities is sufficiently
accurate to reserve great weight. In
any event, as already stated, the total
tax burden would seem a much more
representative basis for comparison,
as the distribution of that burden
should be made in the light of local
| conditions.
Evening star., 1936-04-08
PART II.
A. COMBINED CITY, COUNTY AND
STATE TAX BURDEN FOR 1888.

In the opening paragraph of this
report it was pointed out that many
arguments can pe advanced why the
State tax burden should not be added
to the city and county tax burden in
comparing the tax burden of Wash
ington with other cities. However,
the facts are available and no good
reason appears why they should not
be shown, even though such COM
parsons should not be given the
weight which attaches to the COM
parsons shown in Part I.
For the sake of brevity, it is not
deemed necessary to duplicate all the
tables in Part I on the new basis.
Sufficient will be given, however, to
cover the most important facts de-
veloped there.
(a) Tax Burden.
The combined city, county and State
per capita tax burden for 1888 is
shown in Table 10, which follows
(this table is comparable with Table
2, Part y:
TABLE 10.
COMBINED CITY, COUNTY AND STATE
PER CAPITA TAX BURDEN. Al
LARGEST CITIES IN THE UNITED
STATES.
(CitS Data for I933-State for 1927
ARRANGED in Order of Total Per Capita
Evening star., 1936-04-08
Washington Put With Cities
Carrying Heavy Debt Loads
High Per Capita Tos Sho,0n Here
Despite Lack of Interest obi
cations as Elsewhere.

The full tert OF the Parker
report, placed before the Sen
ate Subcommittee on District
Appropriations today by the
Board OF Trade, folloUS:'
This preliminary report will be con-
fined to the comparison OF the tax
burden. In the category of taxes we
include property taxes. franchise taxes.
poll taxes, licenses and permits and
all other receipts which can properly
be termed taxes. We do not include
special assessments, fines and for
FIXTURES, interest receipts, earnings
from public service enterprises, etc.
In our opinion a comparison of the
tax burden is more representative
than a comparison by individual taxes.
How the tax burden is to be most
equitably distributed is matter which
is a local problem to be determined
by an examination of the facts and
conditions in each locality. For in
stance, because one State levies a Z
cent-per-gallon gasoline tax, it does
not follow that every State should
levy a 7-cent gasoline tax.
Divided in Two Parts.
For convenience, the report Is di-
vided INTO two parts. Part l makes
comparisons based on the combined
city and county tax burden. Part 2
makes comparisons based on the COM
bined city, county and State tax
burdens. This arrangement is made
because many arguments can be ad-
vanced why the State tax burden
should be eliminated in comparing
the tax burden in other cities with
Washington. However. in order to be
perfectly fair, part 2 includes the
State tax burden so that any that
hold the opposite view may be in
possession of the facts.
Census Figures Used.
It has been deemed wise to use
throughout the excellent data pre-
pared by the Department of Com
merce, Bureau of Census, in respect
to the tax burden of the cities. In
the case of the 26 largest cities. the
Vi lLlC SC4lOAO SAfNo SAAS NN4As
bined city and county tax burden.
This is also true of the City OF Den
yer. In the case of the other II cities.
we have added the county per capita
tax burden from the most recent data
of the Bureau Of Census, In order that
all A cities may be on comparable
basis. BY using the figures of the
Bureau of Census, We are assured OF
uniformity even though slightly more
up-to-date data might be secured
from local reports.
PART
A. COMBINED CITY AND COUNTY
TAX BURDEN FOR 1888.
(a) Population.
A table showing the A largest cities
of the United States and their popu-
lation In 1888 Is the first data Of sig
nificance. This table follows:
TABLE l.
1889 POPULATION OF A LARGEST
CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
fEstimated BY the Bureau of Census IS Oh
Middle of Fiscal Year,
Evening star., 1936-04-08

A mass meeting to protest the dis
missal of 200 employees from the
Procurement Division of the Treas
ury will be held at 8 o'clock tonight
at Friends Meeting House, all
Florida avenue. under the auspices
of the Federation of Architects. En-
gineers, Chemists and Technicians
and the Architectural Guild OF
America.
Representative Marcantonio, Re-
publican, of New York is expected
to speak.
The workers dropped were on tenn
porary basis.
Evening star., 1936-04-08
Text of Report by Capitol Expert Districts Tax Brder

such comparable cities as Baltimore,
Md; New Orleans, La; Atlanta, Ga,
and st. Louis, Mo. In 1888 the per
far In excess of the tax burden Of
those comparable cities.
(h) The Property Tax Burden.
As stated in the Introductory para
graph of this report, In our opinion.
the comparison Of the tax burden
arising from each different tax in the
forty-four cities is far less represent
ative than q comparison Of the total
tax burden. The fair distribution OF
the tax burden Is a matter which
should be determined by the facts and
conditions existing In each locality.
However. In the past, a great many
comparisons have been made OF the
property tax burden or the property
tax rate in Washington with such fig
ures for other cities.
In the first place, in order for such
comparisons to be of any weight, the
ratio of assessed value to true mar
ket value must be determined. This
Is a difficult proposition, as Is well
recognized. For example, In the re-
port prepared by the Treasury De-
partment and submitted to the Con-
gress on April 13, 1885, the following
statement appears:
"As has been indicated, COM
parative rates of taxation on
general property, however re-
fined, afford only crude and
preliminary measure Of the COM
parative tax burden of differ
ent cities. Not only are there
important differences in valua-
ton practices that may be in
adequately corrected by the
foregoing adjustments. but there
are also important differences
among the various cities and
other local governments in
sources Of revenues other than
general property taxes
In the second place, while it is
true that the general property tax
has In the past been the chief source
of revenue of most of our cities. in
recent years there has been a marked
tendency to reduce this tax. This
has come about from a recognition of
the inequities Of high general prop
erty tax and from the fact that in a
number of communities during the
depression years the tax became un-
collectable in a vast number Of cases
For example, I quote from the "Spe-
cial Report of the New York State
Tax Commission" (No. 81 submitted IN
| February, 1885:
THE general property tax has
now proved to be defective in
principle and unenforceable in
practice"-
| In the next place, the gen.
eral property tax ignores the
differences between wealth and
mere representative property
rights" ="
Again. the general property
tax ignores the differences in
the cost To the community
which different kinds of prop
erty occasion"
We will first give a table showing
the per capita assessed valuation of
property subject to the general prop
erty tax from the 1888 data of the
Bureau of the Census in respect to the
A largest cities in the United States.
The cites are arranged in order of the
magnitude of the per capita assessed
valuation. The table follows:
| TABLE 8.
| PER CAPITA ASSESSED VALUATION or
| PROPERTY SUBJECT TO GENERAL
| PROPERTY TAX-I933. a LARGEST
4 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
| (Arranged in order Of Amount Of Pei
| Capita Assessed Valua tion.)
Evening star., 1936-04-08

above data that:
O Washington ranks third In COM
bined tax burden per white inhabitant,
being exceeded in this respect only by
the large metropolitan cities of Boston
and New York.
(2) Boston, the city with the great
est tax burden per white inhabitant,
exceeds Washington by less than z
per cent.
90 In general there appears to
be more uniformity in the per capita
tax burden of the various cities on
this basis.
(e) Relation Of Tax Burden to
Interest Payments.
In order to show how the tax bur-
den is increased by annual interest
charges, a table has been prepared,
comparable with table 8. part l,
showing the combined city, county
(see TEXT, Page Aid
Evening star., 1936-04-08

subtracting from this sum the per
capita annual interest charge:
TABLE 6 (b).
Pc CAPITA TAX REVENUE AVAILABLE
FOR GOVERNMENTAL OPERATION
I93:i (PER CAPITA TAX RENENNE
Plus NET EARNINGS OF PUBLIC
SERVICE ENTERPRISES MINUS
INTEREST PAYMENTS). IL
LARGEST CITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES.
(Arranred in Order Of Per Capita Tax
Revenue Available.)
Evening star., 1936-04-08

1t will be noted from the above
table that Washington, ID. c., ranks
fourteenth in respect to population.
(bl Tax Burden.
The combined city and county per
capita tax burden for 1888 is shown
in Table II, which follows:
TABLE 2.
COMBINED CITY AND COUNTY PER
CAPITA TAX BURDEN IN 1888
A LARGEST CITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES.
Arranged In Order Of Per Capita Tax
Evening star., 1936-04-08

HNote.-WaShlngton. OF course. mas no
State tax burden. but in order to make The
data given comparable. it is necessary to
add in lieu of the State tax burden the
average of the so per cent tax credit allow
able by the Federal Government for local
death duties All the States shown above
take advantage Of this credit. but the
District does not The burden is Just as
real on the taxpayer, however.
TIE following facts may be seen from
this table:
Washington ranks eighteenth in
per capita tax burden and fourteenth
in population out of the forty-four
largest cities Under consideration. In
other words, Washington is not far out
of its proper place on the sole basis
of population.
(2) The per CAPITA tax burden Of
Washington Is greater than the COM
bined city, county and State per capita
Evening star., 1936-04-08
TABLE IL.
ARRANGED in Order, of Per Capita Tax
Relation Of Tax BurdeI
Density of Population.

Density of Population.
We have constructed a table sim
liar to table 4. part l, showing the
density Of population per acre in
each Of the A largest cities Of the
United States compared with the COM
bined city, county and State per
capita tax burden in such cities. The
table follows
TABLE IL.
COMPARISON OF AVERAGE POPULATION
PER ACRE WITH PER CAPITA CITY,
COUNTY AND STATE TAX
BURDENS-I933.
III LARGEST CITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES
Evening star., 1936-04-08

cities of Newark and Jersey City are
higher in rank in tax burden than In
population due to their proximity to
New York City.
(4) The Southern cities rank uni
formly lower in tax burden than in
population. For example, Baltimore
ranks twenty-first in tax burden and
eighth in population; New Orleans
ranks thirtieth in tax burden and
sixteenth in population: and Birming-
ham forty-fourth in tax burden and
thirty fourth In population.
1t seems fair to conclude from the
above that the population is fac
tor in the per capita tax burden, but
that it is not the only factor. We
must then make further comparisons
to illustrate the other factors which
affect the tax burden.
The principal factors affecting the
tax burden, leaving out of account in
efficiency and waste, appear to be as
follows:
/. Geographical situation.
2. Density of population.
8. Character of population.
4. Debt service charges.
(c) Relation of Tax Burden to Geo.
graphical Situation.
1t is obvious that the geographical
position of city has something to
do with the necessity for its expendi-
lures, and hence with its tax burden.
In a cold climate, snow removal is a
necessary expense, also water pipes
must be laid deeper and streets and
sidewalks must be properly protected
against frost action. Then, of course,
each city has individual peculiarities
in respect to geographical situation.
Some cities by their location have to
find their water supply at great dis
tance, others have extraordinary diff
Guilty with sewage disposal. 1t may
be sufficient to show the effect of geo.
graphical location in a general way
by dividing the States into two groups
the first group comprising the
Northern and Pacific Coast States, and
the second group comprising the
Southern States. In classifying the
States into these two groups, it is,
OF course, necessary only to classify
those States containing one or more
of the "A cities which have been Sc
lected for comparison. The claSsifica-
ton of States into the two groups
is as follows:
Group 1, Northern and Pacific
Coast States-Massachus Rhode
Island, New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania. Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Min
nesota, Nebraska, Colorado, Wash
ington. Oregon, California.
Group 2, Southern States-Mary-
land, District OF, Columbia, vir-
ginia, Georgia, Kentucky, Tennes-
see, Alabama, Missouri, Louisiana,
Oklahoma, Texas.
We are now in position to present
Table 3 (a) and Table (b) which
will show the tax burden of each city
in the two groups and the average tax
burden per city in each group. The
| tables follow:
TABLE (a).
Group /.
COMBINED PER CAPITA CITY AND
COUNTY TAX BURDEN-1933. 80
LARGEST CITIES IN THE UNITED
STATES-LOCATED IN NORTH
ERN AND PACIFIC STATES.
(Arranged in Order of Per Capita Tax
Evening star., 1936-04-08

tax burden Of such comparable cities
as Baltimore, Richmond. Philadelphia
and Atlanta.
(b) Relation of Tax Burden to Geo.
graphical Situation.
If we compare the per capita tax
burden of Washington with the COM
bined per capita tax burden Of the
fourteen largest cities Of the Southern
States, we shall find that Washington
still ranks first as we found In Table
3 (b) Of Part 1. This is shown by the
following table:
TABLE IL.
COMBINED CITY AND COUNTY AND
STATE PER CAPITA TAX BURDEN
1898. II LARGEST CITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES LOCATED IN
SOUTHERN STATES.
Evening star., 1936-04-08
Sl,o'cs Capital Ranking Third
In Total Per Capita of a. Cities
Other Unusual Comparisons Made in
Parker's Examination of Census
Bureau Figures.

1t will be noted from the above table
that Washington has increased more
per capita In the estimated true value
Of property than is the case with any
other Of the cities except Chicago and
Syracuse. This Is rather surprising
as is also the great variation in the
percentage Of increase in the other
cities. 1t is evident that too much
weight cannot be given to these esti-
mates.
1t may be of value to make de-
tailed comparison of the estimates Of
the true value Of property in Wash
ington, D. c., and Baltimore. Md.
In the case of both Of these cities, the
District Bureau Of Governmental Re-
search estimates that the true value
comedies with the assessed value. The
estimates for 1888 are as follows:
Evening star., 1936-04-08
Suicide at 95.

Ninety-five-year-old Miss Elizabeth
Byford of Wallasey. England, commit
ted suicide by hanging recently.
Evening star., 1936-04-08

Note.-County TAX puroen lor II smallest
cities based on 1882 data but county
taxes on he average account for only q
small share Of the combined tax burden.
The following facts should be noted
In analyzing the above table:
-1) Washington ranks third in mag
nitude Of per capita tax burden, al
though only fourteenth in population.
CD All the cities which have a
greater tax burden than Washington
have q greater population.
t(3) 1t is noticeable that, regardless
of population. cities Of Massachusetts,
and New York have heavy tax bur-
den. Boston ranks first in tax burden
and ninth in population. Worcester
ranks fifth in tax burden and forty
third in population. The cities of New
York State rank as follows:
Rank in Rank in
City. Tax Burden. Population.
New YORK City ------
Ross.s..Ff Rotis.S F------- -- ! ls
syracuse ----------- Is 10
u should be noted also that the
Evening star., 1936-04-08

TABLE 3 o..
Group 2.
COMBINED PER CAPITA CITY AND
COUNTY TAX BURDEN-1933. IA
LARGEST CITIES IN THE UNITED
STATES LOCATED IN SOUTH
ERN STATES.
Evening star., 1936-04-08

DC - 11--
table that, out of the 81 cities with
a less dense population than Washing
ton, only five have greater tax bur-
den. Three of these cities are on the
Pacific Coast, one in Massachusetts,
and one in Ohio.
(d) Relation of Tax Burden to Char
acter of Population.
The percentage Of the white pop
ulation of the A largest cities in the
United States has already been given
in table 5, part l. A new table has
been constructed, comparable with
table 5 (b), part /, showing the COM
bined city, county and State per capita
tax burden per white inhabitant. This
table follows:
Evening star., 1936-04-08

An analysis Of the above table shows
the following facts:
Evening star., 1936-04-08
representative cities In comparison
with the tax burden Of such cities.
TARIEA

COMPARISON OF AVERAGE POPULATION
PER ACRE WITH PER CAPITA CITY
AND COUNTY TAX BURDEN IN 1898.
IA LARGEST CITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES.
Evening star., 1936-04-08

Average tax burden in
Northern and Pacific
Coast States-~------- S46.91
Evening star., 1936-04-08

cRMbtHfT PER cAPTrS TAX Burden PER wHIfE
INHABITANT: - LARGEST CITiES
IQ33. STATE. 1927
Evening star., 1936-04-08
MASS MEETING CALLED

(see TEXT, Page ALL,
Evening star., 1936-04-08
TABLE 5 (h).

PER CAPITA TAX BURDEN PER WHITE
INHABITANT FOR 1898: a LARGEST
CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES.
(Arranged in Order of Per Capita Tax
Rurden)