Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-04-01
Montgomery Taxes

Either the tax collectors of
Montgomery County have
done me wrong, or Pat M.
Holt. legislative chairman of
the Montgomery County Coun-
Gil Of PTAS, is unacquainted
with the facts concerning the
county in which he heads an
organization whose pressure is
endangering the people of
Montg cry County to
another raise in property
taxes.
Mr.. Holt says: There have
not been any raised assess
ments in Montgomery County
in a number of years"
Evidently Mr.. Holt owns no
property in Montgom merry
County. or has in some man.
ner been overlooked by the
takers of Montgomery County.
For anyone owning property in
Montgomery County knows
that all real property was re-
assessed only three years ago.
and that everyone's taxes in
creased accordingly. My own
tax increased from S185 to
1856 in the process. same
house. same lot. Three years
ago the State Legislature en-
acted a new assessment law in
Maryland. providing that all
real property be assessed at
current sales value. allowing
up to a given percentage
credit to the Metropolitan
Washington Area, to Offset in
fiationary aspects due to the
proximity to the city.
Everyone in my community
Ouxmanor) experienced an
increase in assessment and
thereby an exorbitant increase
in taxes.
Yes, Mr.. Holt. there Is a tax
revolt. in Montgomery County.
and in the United States. No
one with common sense wishes
to hamstring the educational
process, nor does anyone with
common sense wish to rubber
stamp the proposals Of the tax
raisers. It has become evident
that we cannot pay-as-we-go
and should not on road and
school building.
Tax Conscious.
$50
Pat. M. Holt. legislative
chairman of the Montgomery
County Council of PTAs, says
In his letter. "There have not
been any raised assessments
in Montgomery County in a
number Of years; and then he
argues that the assessments
are at a rate substantially one
half or less than the actual
market value.
l have studied a number Of
recent cases, and listened to
others argued in courts. and
while they refute what Mr..
Holt says by their very exist
ence in controversy. would
like to recite briefly the history
Of my own case, as a specific
example.
In late l949 or early 1850.
after searching Prince Georges
and Montgomery County from
end to end. purchased the
least expensive ground obtain
able on the market. Within
two years the county reas-
sessed the property at five
and one half times the pur-
chase price. In due time the
final decision OF the Appeals
Tax Court reduced the assess
ment to somewhat less than
twice the actual cost.
Two years later. in utter
disregard of the Tax Courts
decision. the assessors in
creased the assessment to six
and one half times the pur-
chase price, and the matter
has been pending for two and
one half wears in the various
tax courts and the county
court with no inkling Of when
the case can be heard again
before a proper court OF law !.
In the meantime the tax bill
on the property in question
would lead a casual observer to
think the owner was undoubt-
eddy possessed of a palatial
estate. for the figures involved
are several times over those
which Mr.. Holt considers in
his Judgment more than ought
to be reasonably expected.
John G. eager.
n
The Montgomery County
Council Of PTAs has been
heard from again. AS usual. II
parrots the same misleading
propaganda which we have
come to expect from the Ma
tional Education Association
by indulging in false implica-
tons and half-truths.
Pat M. Holt cannot deny
that heavier tax burdens will
result II the excessive and
wasteful school budget is APP