Evening star., 1937-01-27

typical" property from city to cityP
We find that the average appraised
value OF this property ranges from
$11,725 in New Orleans to $3l2,643
in Washington. In Baltimore the
average appraised value Of such "typi-
cal" property is $23,364, but in
Cincinnati it is $100,400. In Kansas
City it is $20,682, but in Cleveland it
is $41,115, while in Pittsburgh it is
$125,0OO In Jersey City this typical"
property is appraised, on an average,
at $47.147, but when this typical prop
erty is moved to Newark, a short dis
tance away, the appraisal Jumps to
$103,469.
What Happens With n Store?
Let us try again with a store. de-
scribed in the report as:
"Two-story business property;
100 per cent location. Two-story,
brick construction, in the best retail
business blocks. Stores not less
than so feet or more than 100 feet
deep. Tenant pays all expenses
except taxes, insurance, deprecia-
ton and exterior upkeep. If occu-
pied by owner, estimate rental"
In moving this store from city to
city we find that it is appraised at
$500 in New Orleans and $409.643
in Seattle. This typical" store Is ap-
praised at $111,S29 in Baltimore,
shrinks to $29, ,485 in Boston, leaps to
$63,182 in Buffalo, nose-dives to
S28,60O in Cincinnati, scars into the
$l57,l43 clouds of Cleveland, spirals
into the $24l,89l stratosphere OF
Washington, D. c., hits the $355,4l7
ceiling of indianapolis, descends to
Jersey City's s165,273 and then to
Kansas City's s21,725. with equally
interesting ups and downs in other
cities.
While the apartment house was
appraised at $47,147 in Jersey City
and slO3, ,469 in nearby Newark, the
store was appraised for $165,273 in
Jersey City and s46.850 in Newark.
Properties Not Typical"
These astonishing results show con-
clusively, Of course, that the appraisers
in the 18 different cities included in
the comparison had very hazy idea
of what sort of property the experts
in Washington wanted appraised. II
the property was typical Of its class
in one city, 1t was no longer typical
as between cities. The appraisers were
not appraising the same kind OF prop
erty at all. And II they were not ap-
praising typical property good por-
ton Of the reports case for adjusting
tax rates on the basis of uniform ap-
praiSals of typical" property imme-
diately falls to pieces.
The experts relied. furthermore, on
the estimates or guesSes Of property
appraisers in different cities and their
alleged appraisal of various numbers
Of properties. In Baltimore, for in
stance, the standard Of assessment
there and the theoretically adjusted
tax rates were based on an alleged
careful appraisal OF ITS properties.
Here in Washington 76 properties
we're represented as having been ap-
praised by three local appraisers. who
apparently can recall carefully ap-
praising only IA. Even If they ap-
praised carefully all of the rs proper
ties, would their results necessarily be
sound index of actual taxes paid
for all property in Washington, or for
the actual level of assessments? The
value of property depends on many
things which cannot be reduced by
| any known method to uniformity,
especially when the property is dis
tributed over 18 cities in every part Of
the United States.
Conclusions Based on Guesses.
For one set of guesses by assessors
in the different cities the fiscal in
vestigators substituted another set Of
guesses by unofficial appraisers and
without allowing anything for State
taxes or interest payments, which fig
ure so largely in the tax burden else
where, but which are not equitably
to be included in measurement of
Washington's tax burden, concluded
that Washington Is escaping a fair
tax burden. But the method of reach
ing the conclusion is so manifeStly
faulty that the conclusions can
scarcely be accepted as fact by any
one.
(NeIt articles Equitable deduc-
ttOns in tar burden c0rnnnrisons