Evening star., 1937-01-17
Theorizing and Guessing.


vestigators for comparing tax burdens
Is subject to fundamental weaknesses
revealed in past applications of the same
method. The method is not distinctly
new 1t has been renowned, as the say
ing goes, by some remodeling and fresh
coat of paint. But it is still dependent
for its accuracy on guesses and estimates
and assumptions and theorizing and this
dependency is the traditional weakness
OF this method.
In connection with the method, the re-
port explains:
The practice of comparing the tax
rates of various municipalities without
relation to competent and uniform ap-
praisal of property has long been con-
demned. 1t is an acknowledged fact that
assessing officials, irrespective OF the laws
defining the methods of assessment pro-
cedure, assess property at something diff
ferent from the value. Assessments OF
property do not necessarily reflect the
value, even though the statute requires
that the assessment should be based on
the value of property.
That is very true, as demonstrated
time and again. Neither assessments nor
tax rates have much significance as in
dicating tax burden. The assessments
In different communities vary not only
with local standards of assessment, but
with the Judgment and even the integrity
of the assessors. The assessment may
mean anything from thirty or forty per
cent up, while the tax rate is merely
the rate from which the desired tax levy
Is produced.
To get around the difficulty in varia-
ton of assessment standards. however.
the fiscal investigators merely substi-
tuted another difficulty by an attempt
to measure:
The actual property tax load by ap-
praising typical properties and determin-
ing tax rates from the amount of money
paid as taxes per $1,000 OF the appraised
valuation.
Appraisers of property in seventeen
cities and the District were asked for
their judgment as to value of typical"
properties. as compared with assessed
value. In other words, the appraisers
estimates were substituted for the asses
sors' estimates, and on such estimates
there were computed theoretical tax
rates, adopted as yardstick in measure
ment of tax burdens.
What happened in Washington? The
report indicates that seventy-six typical"
properties were carefully appraised by
expert local appraisers. On the basis
of their estimates-if the implications
of the report are to be accepted-pre-
vailing ratios of assessed to true value
In Washington were decided as follows:
Single family homes, II per cent; two
family homes 10 per cent; row houses,
SO per cent; multi-family, "a per cent:
stores. 81 per cent. But instead of
eeventy-six properties thus being ap-
praised, the appraisers themselves, known
and respected in the community, say that
between them they carefully appraised
only fourteen.
The report says the appraisers were
asked to list from ten to twenty addi-
tional properties, with their opinion" as
to the value Of each, and that for the
most part the properties listed were:
Selected in various sections of each
city. Thus the opinions of value repre-
sent wide range for different types Of
property and also for the different loca-
tions in the respective communities .
But only one of the three local ap-
praisers listed additional properties with
his opinion of their value and his selec-
tions were confined to two residential
sections not necessarily typical. What
happened in the other cities? There is,
OF course, no way of knowing definitely.
All that appears certain is that Some-
body's preconceived theory regarding the
proper way to compare tax burdens,
which in turn is dependent upon some
body's estimates or guesses to make it
accurate, was followed out; conclusions
were reached and presented as factual
material supporting claim that WASH
lngton Is underasSessed and undertaxed.
The same faulty, theoretical yardstick
manufactured for measuring tax burdens
Is applied to assessments here and in
other cities. The assessment level in
Washington is pictured not only as low
here, but low in comparison. After con-
demning the unreliability of assess
ments generally as not necessarily re-
iecting value, the Investigators turned
sauarely around in their tracks and used
such assessments. in connection with the
appraisers estimates, to show that WASH
ingtons assessment level is relatively
low.
Washingtons assessment is not low,
Judged absolutely or relatively. 1t is as
high as humanity possible for an asses
sor, responsible only to Congress and
always in the position of defending his
thoroughness and compliance with the
law, can make it. If the conclusions
relating to assessment levels in Wash
ington are true, former Assessor Rich
ards should be hailed before q congress
sional committee and forced to defend
his evasion Of the Law, If not true. other