Real  Estate   Record





AND BUILDERS' GUIDE.





Vol. XXI.





NEW YOIIK, SATUEDAY, MAIICH 2H, 1878.





No.  528.





Publislied Weekly by

CIjc liciil (Estate Sftarb i^ssoctatbu.

TERMS.
OWE I'EAn, in advance....SIO.OO.
Coinmunications should he addressed to

C.   \V.   S^VEET,

Nos. 315 ANO :M7 Broadwav.





The Recoki is printed and sent to the Post Office
in time to be delivered in every part of New York
City and Brooklyn by the earner's lli-st early delivery.
Any subscriber who does not receive from the letter
enrrier his paper by the earliest delivery- will please
report the fact imniediatelv.





STATE TAXATION.

There have been many jiiid great discu.ssions
during the past five years concerning State
taxatirjn, tho merits of which we will venture to
stij- are'entirelj- unluiown to tho general reader be¬
yond the allegation that in the apportionment of
State taxation the city is being defrauded by tho
country. Tho bases of this allegation are neither
easily accessible nor readilj- comprehensible. We
purpose, however, to,present to our readers a
connected and intelligible account of the contro-
vei-sy. Great reputations have been founded in
an abilitj' to handle this question, and e.xcellent
men have talked themselves hoarse in dilating
iilion its intricacies. It is to bo feared that one of
our Tax Commi.ssioners has actuallj- impaired his
health in blowing a fog-horn upon this recondite
subject. A proper analysis and discussion of this
theme are comparable only to the study of
liuinan anatomy, so articulated and ramified are
its is.sues. The pillars of the main questions in
di.spute rest upon the foundation «f assessed and
.ipportioned values, and of their ratios, upon com¬
parisons of population and acreage, and tlieir
productiveness, all duly formulated in dreary and
hcwildering columns of numerals, which are
supposed to furnish tho ammunition for a deadlv
aim at the very heart of the controvei-sy.

In the fii-st place we will present to our reatlers
II table showing the aggregate of the State tax
levy for I.S77, and tho manner of its apportion¬
ment between the city and the countrj-.-

STATE T.,VX LEVY.

• t, .          -.. Taxed           Amount

^     „ ,     ,           -Rate.       A ahiation.s.        of tax

For Schools.... i;^ mills   ?2.755,740,31R   S,3,1(10 r.^ 85
lor general pur-

„ P^,f«......---111-21'-                -----          4,018,787 92

For the new Cnpi-

tol and  other

buildings......   H   "                -----            fias.93,';08

^or canals......^   '•               -----             fli8;580 16

'"'"'^al..........9F0                                 58,726.511 01

Apportioned as follows:

New York County................              *j irr-) 883 8=>

Fifty-nine other counties.........'.'.'.'.'.'.'. ^4'.5G:V.6-27 le

'^'^t*'.................■•.................$8,72^511 01

The i-eal subjects of controversy are whether
this levy of taxation is now inequitably appor¬
tioned among the various counties of the State,
and if so. whether there is any -way of effecting
an equitable apportionment.





To a correct understanding of the premises, it
is necessary to hear in mind that the entire State
is divided into minute sub-districts called w-ards
or t«wns. for the purpose of Jocal tax assess¬
ment. For all purposes of town or local taxation,
the sub-a,sse.s.sors within these districts are
supreme, and their valuations and the rate of
taxation growhig out of them are conclusive and
binding upon tho residents of such sub-districts.
These sub-districts are aggregated into counties
as the next highest division, and upon such ag¬
gregated valuations the county taxes aro levied.

Fiuallj- there aro three State Assessoi-s having
jurisdiction of tho assessed valuations of the sep¬
arate counties of the State for the purpose of levy¬
ing State taxation. In lS.")9,in order to secure a fair
and just apportionment of taxation, a special of
fice w-as created, to wit: the Board of State Equal-
iziition and Apportionment, consisting of the three
assessors already named and, besides, seven of the
highest oiliciids of tho State. This board has the
power to make arbitrary changes in the lists of
county valuations that are presented to them by
the State Assessoi-s, and their final determination
and distribution of gross valuations establishes tho
basis of distribntion of the State tax levy for any
given year.

The town of w-)iieh we are citizens happening to
be co-equal, and co-extensive with the county,
its valuations are determined -and adjusted for
local pui-poses bj- a Board of Tax Commissioners
who are aided in their duties by a corps of about
a dozen deputy assessoi-s. In the other counties
of the State, excepting Kings, and perliaps
some of the counties in which are situated the
leading provincial cities, the assessment di.stricts
taper off to such small limits as to embrace as a
mininum not more than two or three hundred tax
paj-ei-s. In these small communities the circnm-
staiicea of each tax payer are likely to be w-ell
understood by the others, and hence there is le.ss
opportunity of concealing subjects of taxation
than in larger towns and cities. Some idea how¬
ever may be formed of the crude, bungling and
inexplicable results that characterize, and we may
say vitiate and taint the a.ssesscd valuations
throughout tho State by a scrutiny of the follow¬
ing table taken from the last rojiort of the Comp¬
troller of the State, which we prefer to incorpor¬
ate in his own language as t'ne most appropriate
in which the story can bo told.

" Notwithstanding the universal shrinkage in
values, the asse-ssed valuation of real estate by
local as-sessors is constantly increasing.

In 1.S.V1 it was returned at................§1,015.76-3.791

In 187-1 it was returned at................1.750.6aS.918

In 1876 it was returned at.................2,:i7fi,'i52,l78

" It required twenty years of combined pros¬
perity and inflation to increase tho valuation of
our real estate §71)0,0(10,000, wliilst only three
years of unmixed disaster and bankruptcy- in¬
creases the valuations upwai-ds of 6(J00,01M),(K)0.

Tho figures would seem to demonstrate that
advei-sity is more conducive to wealth than is
prosperity."

The whole gravamen of tho charge in respect
to unequal State taxation lies just here: it is
claimed that the practice prevails with the coun¬
try assessors almost as an invariable rule of asses¬
sing as a taxable valuation one-third only of tho
market value of property; whereas, the Tax
Commissioners of New York assert that their as-
se-ssments represent at least sixtj- if not eighty-





five per cent of total value. In performing their
duties tho State a-ssessors choose to place their
own con.struction u[K)n these various estimates of
value; and pos.sibly it may be interesting to our
readers, as it will certainly furnish them with
some idea of the perplexity of the problem pre¬
sented to theso State a.s,«essors, if we refer to a
table w-hich has already been published showing
the ratios used by local a.sses.sors, and the ratios
adopted by State as-sessore for the same counties.

Ratio of assess-   Ratio of assess¬
ed value to           ed value to

total value used   total value used

by Local              bj- State

Assess. ITS.           Assessors,

Cayuga.............      .%.5                         ri.4

Chautauqua........      ai 5                         8.").:i

Delaware.........      S-I                            tii.4

Dutchess...........      ;i7                           43

Erie------.........       32                           34.4

Franklin...........       43.5                         69

Fult-m..............       35                           40

Genesee............      39                           53 1

Jefferson...........      3:1                            45.5

Lewis............       33                           87.2

Livingston..........      .'{t5                         ftS 9

Monroe.............       .'12.5                         3,8 3

Niagara ...........      :f3                            5fi.8

Orleans ............       .37                           75 5

Queens.............      ,32                           :i(> 2

Richuiond.......      22                            56.6

Schoharie.........      31                            fi5.9

Schuyler...........       at5                        74.5

Seneca..............       40                           45 8

Steuben............       40.5                         82.2

Tompkins...........       .30                           74

Wyomiiig..........       38.5                        .57.4

Yates...............      40                           m r,

It is claimed that the State assessors, in exer¬
cise of the plenarj' powers conferred upon them,
arbitrarily and despotically choose to consider
the valuations established bj' country assessors to
be one-half instead of one-third total valuation;
whereas, the claim of the city Tax Commissioners,
that they have valued taxable property in this city
at sixty per cent, of its value, is entirely repudia¬
ted by the State assessors, who claim that such
valuations do not represent more than fifty per
cent of such total valuations. That is they level
up the city valuations and level down the coimtrv
valuations.

Tho State Board of equalization and apportion¬
ment, acting upon the representations of the State
Assessors are guilty of further acts of autocratic
and arbitrary power, in apportioning the-so var¬
ious valuations. It will probably be seen that the
country valuations, instead of being placed at
three times the sums assessed by the local as¬
sessors, are thereby placed at onlj- twice these
amounts, whereas, the citj- valuations, though
claimed to be in the neighborhood of seventj--five
per cent of actual values, are treated as if they
were one-half said values, and in this wise, there
is a large reduction upon the country valuations,
equal to one-third of the total established and
sworn to by the local assessors, and a correspond¬
ingly heavj- addition made to the valuation for
this citj-, the amounts asses.sed bj- our own
commissioners being doubled in order to obtain
the full valuation, whereas, it is alleged, the re¬
sult thus obtained amounts to from one hundred
and twenty to one hundred and fifty per cent of
our entire taxable propertjr.

This, we may say, is the gist of the quarrel that
has been so persistently and actively waged be¬
fore the State Board of Equalization. The im¬
plements of this warfare are principally tables of
numerals, and its strategy consists in fulfilling the
adage that,'."figures will prove anjrthing."     Re