Real Estate Record

AND     BUILDERS'    GUIDE.





Vol, XYI.





NEW YOEK, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBEB 11, 1875.





No. 391.





Published Weekly by

THE REAL ESTATE RECORD ASSOCIATION.

C, W, SWEET..'.............President and Tbeasubeb

PRESTON  I, S'WEET,..........Seobetaey.

L. ISRAELS.........................Business Ma^tageb

TERMS,
ONE YEAR, in advance___$10 00.

Communications should be addressed to

C.   SSr.   ©TTEET,

Nos. 345 AND 347 Beoadway.





OUR STATE TAXES.





-Tax Commissioner Andre-ws' commnnication
to the State Board of Eqtialization contains
some valuable facts of interest to property-own¬
ers and taxpayers.    He says:

Por several years tlie impression has prevaUed
among taxpayers'in the City of ISTew York that,
owing to inequalities in assessments in the
various counties of the State, an undue propor¬
tion of the State tax was borne by the city.
That impression has ripened into conviction,
growing out of a state of facts which are here¬
with presented. It appears that during the
past ten years the proportion of the State tax
paid by the city and by the rest of the State, re¬
spectively, has been as follows:

TABLE SHOWING THE SUM OF STATE TAX PAID BY THE
CITY OP NEW YOEK AND BY THE BEST OF THE STATE
DURING-THjE PAST TEN YEABS, WITH THE AMOUNT PER
CAPITA Eds'EACH YEAE, BASED UPON THB   LATE STATE

CESSU8 OE 1865:







Yeab,




Quota of State
tax  for    the
city  of   New
York........




: i^

$4,328,127
4.626.920
7,082,792
5,756,397
5,558,678
7,544,020
51868,894
9.828,130
7,127,422
7,715,096




: ~o

: "n.^.
.    &

•  sta

"$3 99

5  35
7 66

6  18

6  75
9 28

7  90
13 43

10  69

11  03




For each inhab¬
itant  of rest
of State.....





1866.................




$2,902,849
3,890,544
5,564.426
4,486.920
4,904.501
6,741,956
5,745,049
9,761,752
7,673.481
8,012,386




$1 39
1 49





1867.................





1868................,

1869.,,..........____




2 29
1 85





1870......____,......




1 80





1871...........,___,




■ 2 42





1872,,,; .,.;.,,,..,.,




1 89





1873.,.,,,,,.........




3 17





1874.................




2 29





1875.................




2 48
















"When it is considered that about one-half the
population of the city is in such narrow circum¬
stances as to occupy tenement houses, it vrill be
conceded that the tax per capita, for such re¬
mote and incidental advantages as the State af¬
fords in return, is extremely onerous. The un¬
dersigned, however, do not rest upon this con¬
dition of aflfairs as affording, in itself alone, a
sufficient reason for the t otion they solicit at
your hands. The apportionment ip based upon
property, "and not upon population.

Prior to the adoption of the ratio of 43 per
cent by the State Assessors, the Tax Commie-
Bioners submitted to those officers a schedule
including nearly five hundred pieces of property
scattered in all the wards, which had been sold
or weTe for sale at prices upon which the assess¬
ments ranged from 56 to 103 per cent, averag¬
ing 68 3 per cent,, and of others in one subur¬
ban ward' (the Twelfth), ranging from 45 to (50
per cent, averaging 51 -per cent But the total
assessments in the Twelfth 'Ward were only
7,7per cent of those in the e»tire city.   The





fittest practical commentary on those ratios
adopted by the State Assessors may be found in
the following extract from the report of the New
York Tax Commissioners for 1875, page 19:

"In 1873, the State Board added to the assess¬
ment of the entire county of Westchester
$2,677,723, in order to equalize the assessments
in that county with those of New York, In
1874, upon the annexation of three of the towns
of Westchester County, the Commissioners found
it necessary, in order to bring the valuations in
those towns to something like a fair proportion
with the assessments in other portions of the
city, to add $13,468,847 to that same assessment
for 1873. That is to say, that, assuming that the
rest of that county was assessed in the same pro¬
portion in 1873 as the three annexed towns were,
the valuation of the countv should hav 3 been in¬
creased $76,334,957, instead of only $2,677,723,"

To heighten the absurdity of the adoption of
such ratios, it may be added that on page 82 of
the report oi the State Assessors

the ratio of 37>^ is "adopted" for Kingsbridge,
the ratio of 33J^ is "adopted" for Morrisania,
the ratio of 35 is "adopted,' for West Earms,

as the ratios at which these towns were assessed
in 1873, "When annexed to New York City, in
1874, and the assessment was raised upon these
towns from $9,-578,230 to $23,047,540, by the
Tax Commissioners of the city, then the same
page of the report, in a note, states that "these
towns are now annexed to New York, and as¬
sessed 38 per cent, of lull value," That is to
say, that $9,578,230 is 35i per cent, out of the
city, and that $23,047,540 is 38 per cent on the
same property, when annexedtb the city; where¬
as, the rule of proportion makes the latter sum
equal to 84,9 per cent. This is one of the rare
instances where mathematical demonstration is
possible.

Such remarkable discrepancies as these have
brought the undersigned before your board, with
a behef on the part of the tax-payers of the city
that a presentation of such facts would insure a
more equitable distribution ot the burden of
State taxation.

It is not deemed necessary to give special
prominence to the fact that during 1874 real
estate generally declined in value. If that ele¬
ment be taken into accotmt, then the assessed
value of city property must be placed at not less
than 85 per cent, of current values. Indeed,
the undersigned are informed that in many in¬
stances sales have been made at public auction
at prices less than the assessed valuations. It
may well be doubted whether, if the Tax Com¬
missioners increased valuations generally, they
would not incur the risk of overrunning actual
values.

The undersigned have been content to make
their statement before your board in the form of
facts, uuencumbered by argument, and upon
this presentation of facts they rely, to secure at
your hands an equitable apportionment for the
city they represent. They may be pardoned
for referring to the incident that, while paying
one half ol the State tax, the City of New York
has no direct representative in your board,
•This consideration has doubtless influenced her
Legislature in delegating the undersigned to
appear before you. But, although the city has
no voice in your council, the claims of justice
and'equity will doubtlcbs receive such consid¬
eration at your hands as will do much to
reconcile her to the eiclu^ion. RespectfiiUy
submitted,                         Geo. H, Andbews,

"Wilson G. Hunt,
Isaac Shebman,
On behalf of the City of New York.

New Yobk, Septeinber, 1875.





THE HEW PARADE GROUND.





The Department of Parks, at a meeting held
on Monday last, decided to proceed with the
application to the Supreme Court for a commis¬
sion to appraise the lands condemned by the
city April 5, 1873, for a parade-ground. The
Board of Aldermen lately passed a series of
resolutions, which were approved by the Mayor,
requesting a suspension of all action in the mat¬
ter for the present, and this action of the De¬
partment of Parks is in direct opposition to
that of the Aldermen, The reasons of the De¬
partment for carrying on the undertaking are
comprised in the following statement read by
Commissioner Martin:

THE EEASONS FOE THB DEPABTMBNT AOTIOir.

In any case, a conclusion jeached upon an in¬
complete or partial consideration of the facts
should make but little impression upon the
minds of those who have investigated aU the
facts. This gase presents an iUuslration of the
practical wisdom of the Legislature in placing
the decision of so important a question of ad¬
ministration in a department whose duty it is
fully to investigate facts before coming to a de¬
cision, A consideration of all the facts of this case
wiU not lead to the conclusion that the Board
of Aldermen have reached, without stating them
as the basis ot their action, and we respectfully
present them for their information. The mili¬
tary parade-ground was, with two years' delib¬
eration, selected and laid out by the Department
and the military authorities under chapter 628
of the laws of 1871. The map was filed on the
5th April, 1873, The effect of filing this map on
the public and the owners of the property within
the area was, that the filing of the map became
final and conclusive on all parties. There re¬
mained no power to alter or recall it. The
property shown on the map was condemned to
tlie public use. In the words of the statute,
"it became one of the public squares of the
city," It was, under the exercise of the right
of eminent domain, takfen for the public
use. To this extent the rights of the owners
of the property are finally and conclusively
bound. They cannot seU or mortgage their
property. They have no longer an unincum-
Isered estate in property; it is condemned
to another use than theirs. They have a
right against the city as a forcible purchaser to
be paiS. for their land, and to have the price
fixed by a commission to be appointed in a
legal proceeding which the city alone can com¬
mence. They cahnot improve their land and
recover anything when the pric« is fixed, for
the value of their improvements, and in the
meantime they must pay taxes and asseBsments.
Under the mandate of tlie law this Department
has commenced the legal proceedings by which
the price of this land is to be ascertained as the
first step toward enabling the owners to recover
payment for it.

It is this proceeding that we are asked to dis¬
continue. The answer to it is that it is an un»
just and an unwarrantable violation of a con¬
tract in which the city owes the citizen, npon
whose property it has laid its strong hand, ex¬
traordinary good faith, A purchaser who exer¬
cises the sovereign right to lay his hand on pri¬
vate property, and has it then in his own pleas¬
ure to institute the legal proceedings which ha