Evening Star Newspaper, February 7, 1932, Page 3

'"HE SUNDAY ST AR, WASHINGTON, DETROIT CLEARING FINANCIAL TANGLE Budget Slashed by Mayor to Balance Tax Losses and Big Debts. By the Associated Press DETROIT, February 6—Bonded vir- tually to the limit, facing a deficit of more than $10.000,000. a necessary budget slash of $6.000,000, and with tax collections nearly $15000,000 be- hind expectations, Detroit apparently is a financial crisis that has ster to other Araerican i circumstances The principal reason for optimism in the city's financial future is the econ- program of young. red-haired Mayor F phy and his aide. G Hall Roose ntroller. Between them, with the backing of a new city council, they have begun a budget re- duction campaign that reaches into every city department “Don’t lay off old employes or scrub- women or these who will suffe; ly from the loss of wor Mayor Murphy n he began a sys- tematic campaign of reduction believed to be drastic any American city in salary and pa roll th ever Tax Payments Lag. $76.000.000 was appropri- r Detroit get for in the fiscal bi July itse 1931. S confronted with with the est period set at a $19,000.000 I d revenue mated rev the $57.000,000 gap betweer and the expect ang > a re- placed i quota down to $ to slash off | virtually es a great part indebtedness to the 1,000.000 pop growth requ: in paving addition ally this ur- heavy wers, lighting svement actions of the reduce loss of | i ed d se the defis in mon! t $250,000 t that t within rediction e def removed a few month: Opposes Largel Mayor M clared that larger budget and less more taxes ar of income are p be run on $12.00 fiscal year. He b take the city gov get out of its A $7.000,000 wel Budget. repeatedly de- ot stand for a insisted that un- paid or new sources ded, the city must 000 during the nex s warned that it wil 1ment five years to to this amount by Murphy's energetic program sistance to the unemployed, was rai by the ance of public bonds. The mayor has state cannot be done during the fiscal year. Y. M. C. A. WILL HONOR DR. WILLIAM K. COOPER Memorial that this present Services Planned for Late General Secretary, Here 21 Years. A memorial service for the late Dr. | William Knowles Coope leader. who died sudde January 1 will be held in the near future, under plans of the Washington Y. M. C. A. Dr. Cooper had b the service of the local asso tion for 21 general secretary, retiring in 1 Dr. George Otis Smith, of the Federal Power Commission, has been appointed head of a special com- mittee of Y. M. C. A. members assigned to arrange the ceremony. Other mem- ber: f the committee are Hugh A. ‘Thrift and Huston ompson, who, like Dr. Smith, are former presidents of the Leonard W. De Gas who succeeded Dr. 29. retary The committee will the Central Y. M the proposed service. call for a public probably in mect Wednesday C. A. to discuss Tentative plans meeting next month, First Congregational rch, where Dr. Cooper had been an worker, Members of the nu- organizations with which Dr. ad been identified prominently will be invited to attend. SOCIETY ENTERTAINS Ellen Spencer Mussy Tent of rs of Union Veterans of ntertained national offi- at a dinner at the Arlington 1~ Thursd; night Guests ded Miss Katherine R. A. Flood of Newton, Mass. Mrs. Harriett J._Goetz of Buffalo, N. Y., and others SPECIAL NOTICES. RESPONSIBLE FO! v elf. ROBEY C. at cers cf the GOING TO NEW DAILY TRIPS. FULL elphia. AND PART LOADS, New York. Bostoi ints; unexcelle INC., ng_Also MOVIN by t ices in SS CO.. R RENT OR res. Lo AUTO EXPRE! NVALID ROLLING CHAIRS, FOF e complete line of new and used chairs styles nd adiustments: reduced Also’ foldine chairs. Wood or metal. UNITED STATES STORAGE CO.. Met. 1843, sige rice: TO NEW YORK TO NORFOLK ILADELPHIA North and West LIN: e a! ALLIED ¥ FT_VANS a: ship by STEEL LT SMITH'S TRAN:! ¢ 1313 You St N.W__ Phones Nort ROOF LEAKI Call City Service Contracting Co.. 0414, Repairing on houses from ground roof. Monthly payments if desired. __8* NEW 3 MONTHS COURSE. North to i Advertising - G Starting February 9th. Livingstone Academy 1333 P St NW Met. 2083 APPLES, SWEET CIDER We have a large supply of our usual Migh-grade apples and sweet_cider. Rockville Fruit Farm ROOF PAINTING e Rool BT ol 1560-J. ddenly | amount | the | | with an additions from | | total tax lev. emergency | | esting.” | made chairman | | taxation could justifiably be shoved on No. Obligation I Note—This is the sirth and con- | cluding article of a series discussing the past and present attempts to show that Washington escapes pay- ment of fair taxes. HE five preceding articles of this | series have shown that former investigations of relative tax| burdens revealed Washington as | adequately taxed The last inquiry, by the Mapes Com- | ! mittee, indicated that Washington is | Harantly undertaxed; that the imposi- | tion of mew and substitute forms of | taxation, adding $4.100,000 to the total | | burden, ‘would not be excessive. Rep- | resentative Frear of Wisconsin, in re- cording his separate views, declared that $14.000.000 additional in taxes cou'd be levied here without excessive taxation. These contradictory findings are con- fusing, especially in view of a table printed in the Mapes rcport, wh'ch is | referred to by the report as follow: | | “Particular attention is also calle | the comparative statement of assess | valuations, tax levies, tax rates, | | covering a 10-year period. This statis- | tical compilation, showing, the per cent of inc 5 valuations and in taxes ceedingly interesting and shows to what penditures of tax money ve eeded the increase in taxable wealth for comparative purposes, this table presents a valuable study of ral property taxation conditio bat have existed in these cities durin e last 10 years. The table is also of ble value in any study of rela- tax burdens.” The table referred to appears on pa 45-43 of the Mapes report. The last column of the table is reproduced here. 1 column to show the percentage of population increase dur- ing the 10-year period, 1920-30. Percentage of Increase. 1920 to 1930 lation 13 ssed 5 348 559 65 om Tt will be noted that Washington's in- creases in assessed valuation and in (the figures not includ- ing. of course, the Government's tax- exempt holding or the Government’s lump-sum contribution to Washington) d by far those of any other city. Reduced to averages, the comparison is still more significant Average Tncrease. Other cities. Was 50.13 rleen 12.64 6540 18325 Popul n 17.06 113 The Mapes Committee, while reduc- ing its other comparisons to averages, failed so to reduce the findings of this particular t which was referred to, as quoted above, as “exceedingly inter- The reduction to averages was The Star, and not the Mapes Committee The results of th neton 161.36 1333 is table are still more interesting when it is recalled that im- partial investigations of comparative tax burdens undertaken in the past' have shown the adequacy of the tax burden in Washington. “The present assessed value of privately owned real | estate in Washington is fair and rea- sional Com- e payment the Joint Congr in 1916. sonable,” ittee repor cears as | Of taxes on real estate from the assess- | ments as they are now constituted is a fair and reasonable response in such taxation for municipal benefits received | by the citizens of the District,” said | that committee. “The annual tax in| Washington 1s approximately $16 per | capita. In the judgment of your com- | mittee this is a reasonable tax levy at | this time, especially when we consider s we must, that a large proportion of | the population here pays but a small amount of the taxes imposed.” And Senator Works added: “The people of the District are not undertaxed. They are, in my judgment, bearing their fuil share of the burden of the expenses of the District. Just now . 1 think they are being taxed too high If these were the findings in 1916, how can one account for the radical difference in the findings of the Map¥ Committee in 1931, when one takes into consideration the “exceedingly interest- | ing"” table presented by the Mapes Com- mittee and reproduced above, which shows what has been going on in the years between 1920 and 1930? Contradictory Conclusions. Again, the Bureau of Efficiency, in its investigation of 1930, declared that, .. In spite of the fact that Washing- | ton had the lowest real and personal property tax rates of all 14 cities (with | a single exception in the case of per-| sonal _property) its high assessments considered in connection with the Fed. eral Government’s property holdings of | a taxable'nature resulted in levies which on a per capita basis were actually higher than the average of the other | cities.” And again, “Therefore, al-| though Washingion has a lower tax rate than any of these cities, when their tax rates are adjusted on the basis of Wasnington's assessed valuation per capita, Federal property holdings being included, as they should be, Washing- ton’s tax rate is actually higher than the average adjusted tax rate for the other cities.” Other investigations have revealed | Washington bearing an adequate burden of taxation. The Mapes Committee it- self reveals the tremendous increase in assessments and in tax levies here in the last 10 years, as compared to the same increases elsewhere. Yet the Mapes Committee finds that Washing- ton is a city of tax dodgers and that four to fourteen millions of additional Washington. What is the explanation? The Mapes report states that “Arbi- trary set-ups of property values can be worked out to the advantage of any in- terests by mathematical calculations.” In other words, figures don't lie, but liars figure. How does one account for the con- | flicting *“figuring"? There are at least three points of difference between the methods fol- lowed by the Mapes Committee in ob- taining its results and in the methods followed by various other agencies, such, | for instance, as the Bureau of Efficiency. | These differences of opinion, and of resultant computation and comparison, { concern: | (1) The method of arriving at a‘t city’s “full assessment,” as differentiated from the city’s reported assessment. | (2) The use of per capitas in arriv- | ing at a comparison. | (3) The inclusion, for purposes of | comparison, of the vast tax-exempt gov~ ernmental properties in Washington in | order to reach an assessment base for | Washington; the inclusion, for com- | parative purposes, of the governmental | contribution in Washington’s total tax levy. Taking up the first topic, the method of computing relative assessments. Without going into tedious detail, it is universally recognized that there is a great difference between “reported” as- | sessment for taxation purposes and a | “full” assessment that would represent the actual value of taxable property. A city by law may require a 100 per The District Is Not Undertaxed How the Mapes Report Reached Conclusions Dia- metrically Opposed to Others—Mystery of Its Own Figures—How United States | serfous attempt ever been m: | those charged with the administration | obtained from the administrative offi- | actually make the assessments,” a state- jon true valuation is “particularly true | sessed to full value. | based on_opinion. | venience, even by a sworn witness.” 6 s Measured. cent valuation for the purposes of taxa- tion, and yet the actual tax assessment will 'be far below this figure. Varying Assessment Ratios. In respect to Minneapolis and other | Minnesota cities the State Tax Com- mission has said: “Ever since Minnesota became 2| State we have had a law among our| statutes requiring that ‘all property | per cent, and the actual ratio, as com- shall be assessed at its true and fuil value in money.” Never since the first, assessor started on his thankless task Lis property of any kind in Minnesota | been assessed at ‘true and full value,” , has any | s it. The uniform, univer 5- | tom has bec to assess at from 25 to 50 per cent of actual valuc; and tlis custom his had the long continved| approval of the people, the silent sup- | port of the law-making and, in large measure, the acquiescence of the law- enforcing departments of the State government.” Prof. John B. Phillips, professor of economics and sociology, Indiana Uni- crsity, said at the National Tax As- sociition Conference in 1919 in respect to Indiana assessments “At the hearing of the special com- | miscion on taxation the former tax! commissioner testified that so far as b knew there never had been an attemy by anybody to assess or equalize prop- erty in the State at the true cash value, as the law directs. * * * The results | of the most recent investigation are! shown in indicating the ratio | of asse: ¢ value of land lots, 8,77 es being checked un in | 36 counties by experts employed by | the special tax commission of 1916.| According to the investigations of these | experts employed by the commission on | {axation, who secured the real estate| transfers in 36 countics and compared | the assessed valuation with the tru valuation as found by checking up each transfer, the average assessed value | of lands and lots in these 36 counties was 37.79 per cent of the true value in 1916. The counties in which lands | and lots were assessed at the lowest | percentage of true values were (327), Carroll (30.18). Lay (31.39), Lake (25.15), Miami (2 er '(31.53), Starke (2253), Topton | 04). Counties in which lands and | lots were assessed at the highest p centages of truc value were Bartholo mew (4502), Clark (58.96), Crawford (58.02), Floyd (72.72). Harrison (44.81). | Johnson (50.39). Ohio (45450). Scott | (41.90), Switzerland (44.78), Vander- burg (59.49)." Thus, in these 36 coun- ties the ratio of assessed to true value | ranges from 2253 to 7272, while the legal ratio is 100, The Detroit Bureau Research, in its 1931 “So long as a erty in a city pay than one governme vill be experienced in attempting a comparison of that city’s rates with other cities. Some cities have a vary- ing basis of assessment for the differ- cnt government units, some have vary- ing tax rates for different classes of prop within the city, some have a consolidated rate. with only an esti- mated basis of distribution between the units.” of Municipal report, declares e parcel of prop. ax rates for more | al unit difficulties Condition in New York. A recent special report of the State Tax Commission of New York says that The failure to assess property at fair full market value and the widespread assessment at varying percentages of full value in the same taxing district have long baffled evervbody interested in the proper administration of the general property ta Our attempts at respectable assessment in York have had some, but neverth indif- ferent, success. And with over 100 years | of indifferent success, amounting almost to faslure, behind us, the idea has| gradually forced itself upon the com- mission that other means to secure Justice and proper assessment should be attempted. So we have had one prom- i:_ing expedlent, i. e, conditioning State aid to the localities on_ respectable as- sessment, made the subject of a spe- cial study which constitutes this report.” Same Difficulty Recognized. The same difficulty is recognized by the Mapes Committee. It practically | confesses that it is impossible to deter- mine accurately what the full asse ment of a city may be. “In its study of this matter the committee found that various methods are used to arrive at a determination of the relation of as- sessed valuation to actual valuation, none of which determines such rela- tion with absolute accuracy.” . . “There are so many factors to be con- sidered in arriving at the valuation of property, such as the use, income, lo- cation, construction costs, reproduction osts, depreciation, etc., that no two minds will get to a very near approach to uniformity in determining such valu- ation. That is particularly true of: of assessment laws.” _Yet, with a breath-taking change of view, the committee proceeds to state that “The committee believes that the ratios (of assessed to full value) as they appear in the statistical tables, at- tached hereto, are as accurate as it is possible to obtain. These ratios were cers of the municipal governments who ment that should be compared to the committee's other statement that the difficulty of getting two minds to agree of those charged with the administra- tion of assessment laws”—“and from such organizations as real estate boards, chambers of commerce and individual citizens familiar with property values.” And it is on the basis of these ratios, 50 obtained by correspondence, that the committee proceeds to do its figuring of elative tax rates. The committee’s use of these ratios is all the more difficult to understand in view of what the committee calls the “unsafe” method of comparing the as- sessed value of property with the price paid for the property at voluntary sale in order to determine the ratio of as- The Only Reliable Method. That is the method that would appear to be the only reliable method. As District Assessor Richards says, if there is a safer method, he would like to learn of it. It is the method approved by the District of Columbia Supreme Court for the guidance of the Board of Equalization and Review. Other meth- ods are, in the last analysis, merely And Mr. Richards that “opinions may be in an hour without incon- points out changed The real difficulty of finding the ac- tual relationship between assessed and ull value rests in a more or less com- mon foible of humanity. Tax asses- sors, in the majority of cities, are elect- OLN Direction: CLARA MAY DOWNEY OLNEY FARM~-OLNEY,MD. Where excellence of food and refinement of atmosphere are delightfully blended LUNCHEON—TEA—DINNER |in which only the privat | most nearly compares with it in popu- | ington's by 85 per cent, but its alleged | the | yardstick, with tkose of “sample” cities ed to a political office. They are hu man beings. they respond 1S against full-value as- ! sessment. Full value being such an elusive thing under any conditions, the tendency everywhere is to undervalue for the purposes of taxation and, as compensatory in part, to boost the tax rate. Here in Washington the situation is exactly reversed. The tax assessor is an appointed official, responsible only to Congress to carry out the law enact- ed by Congress. The law says that property is to be assessed at full value. The tax assessor as an officlal is amenable only to the pressure from | Congress, which is to comply with the law. As an individual, Mr. Richards’ reputation among the members of Con- gress as well as in the community for personal honesty, integrity and effi- ciency, is not in dispute. The result is that Washington's assessed valuation bears a higher relationship to full value than that of any other city in the coun- try. Yet, the official ratio here is 100 pared with actual sales, is about 90 per cent. What is the result, when the Mapes Committee attempts to compare the so-called “full assessment” of other cities with the full assessment of Wash- ington? The Mapes table comparing actual and “full-value” assessments tells ite own story. It is found that Washing- ton's actual assessment—a Washington , taxable prop- erty and none of the vast tax-exempt properties of the Government s in- cluded—is exceeded by the actual a: sessment of only two cities—Cleveland, with a population nearly twice as large, and Boston, with a population over 300,000 in excess of Washington. | Washington's actual assessed valuation is greater than that of nearby Balti- more, of Pittsburgh, St. Louis, San ncisco. It is more than four times as large Minneapolis, the city that lation among those compared Raising all the assessments by the | committee’s method of personal corre- spondence with men and organizations “familiar with property values” to what the committee regards as “full value,” one finds that Washington's full-value | sment is exceeded only by the full- value assessment of six cities—Cleve- | nd, St. Louis, Boston, Pittsburgh, San | Francisco and Buffalo. On this bas Washington, with a population of 486,- 869, has property valued at $1,313,848. 161, as compared with Cleveland, with a population of 900,420 and property | valuec at $1,627.229.412." In other words, | Cleveland’s population exceeds Wash- “full value” exceeds that of Washington by only 17 per cent. That is an ab- surdity on its face. And the case of Cleveland is typical Using these “full-value” assessment figures, the committee applies them to realty tax levies to get what it calls the “adjusted” tax rates. The lower the “full value” figure, by thi method, the higher tte adjusted tax rate: vice versa, the higher the | “full value” figure, the lower the a justed tax rate. Because of the rela- tively low “full-value" figures arrived at | by the committee for other cities. their resulting “adjusted tax rates” appear relatively large alongside that for Wash- ington, where the assessment figure is relatively high. | Weakness of System Shown. In the hearing of the Joint Citizens' Committee by the Senate appropria- tions subcommittee in 1920 the ques- tion was discussed, “What is the re- liable yardstick for measuring a curately the comparative tax burdens of cities?” The “Can to further question was asked it be made by joining tax rate assessed_valuation of taxable prop- y when full valuation is commanded y law? Or by joining tax rate to full valuation of taxable property as re- ported, estimated or guessed at by Tom, Dick and Harry, officially or unoffi- cially?” The Citizens' Joint Committee, after | comparing low tax rate, high assess- ment cities with kigh tax rate, low assessment cities, and applying this yardstick of measurement of compar: tive tax burdens with extraordinary and incredible results, condemned this standarq, of comparison as utterly un- reliable. The Citizens' Joint Committee chose States which, like Washington, had & | low tax rate and a high standard of assessment and compared their tax | burdens. measured by this misleading that had been mentioned in Hous committee and House debate, as ha ing a higher tax burden than Washing- ton. The comparison showed that “sample” cities of Florida, Mississippi Texas and Kentucky were taxed twice and three times as much as cities of Ohio, Rtode Island and Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia. thus bringing the inevitable conclusion that the “sample” cities were grossly and shamefully overtaxed or that the yard- | stick of measurement was inaccurate, | worthless and misleading. Comparisons of the same nature can be made today. They will show, for instance, that the people of Charles- | ton, S. C. pay a higher tax than the people of ‘any of 12 principal cities in Ohio, Cincinnati and Cleveland in- cluded; that the people of Texas cities are taxed, as a rule, almost twice much as the people of Virginia citie: that the people of San Antonio, Tex., pay practically twice as much in taxes as tbe people of Dallas, in the same State; that the people of Jacksonville pay more than twice as much as the people of either Miami or Tampa. in the same State, and bear a tax burden that is twice or more as large as the tax burden borne by the people of St Louis, Providence, Cincinnati. San Francisco, Birmingham or Washingto; more than three times as much as the people of Winston-Salem, N. C. but | not as much as the people of Troy, N. Y. or Sacramento. Calif. Who can believe that if the yard- stick of measurement adopted were ac- curate, such preposterous conclusions would 'result? The “moral” of. the fable of com- parisons by such methods recalls the moral recited by the Citizens' Commit- tee: “You cannot breed truth and re- liability by crossing tax rates with lies | or widely varying local guesses con- | cerning ‘full valuation.’ Heredity taints with 1alsity and permeates with de- ception every atom of the offspring of such parents.” How Bureau Proceeded. The Bureau of Efficiency, to escape | the hazards of aitempting to estimate what is an accurate or acceptable full-; value figure for other cities, went about‘ getting comparable full-value assess- ments by a method that the Mapes Committee _considers “novel.” The Bureau of Efficiency first obtained the per capita assessment for Washington | and used it as the standard of com- parison. By multiplying this per capita | assessment _for Washington by the| is_only ONE of the many % advantases offered by the | of | United States Cer | sought for and greatest 'EBRUARY 7, 1932—PART ONE * A3 ment” of other cities) it arrived at fig- ures possibly nearer the full value of other cities than those used by the Mapes Committee. For instance, by its method, the bureau found that the full | realty value of Cleveland was $2,083 183,800, as compared to the full realty valie of $1,627229412 established by the Mapes correspondence-with-persons- familiar-with-property-values method And by its method the Bureau of Effi- ciency established an adjusted tax rate for real property in Cleveland of $17.39, as compared with the same adjusted tax rate found by the Mapes Committee of $23.08. Both of these tax'rates are com- I pared with the adjusted tax rate for | tax data for Washington it is ne Washington, found by the Mapes Com- mittec to be $15.30 and accepted by the Bureau of Efficiency as $17. That example is typical of the differ- ence between the conclusions of the Mapes Committee and those arrived at by the Bureau of Efficiency. And now, as regards the use of per capitas in arriving at comparisons of tax burdens. The Mapes Committee attacks this method. Without mentioning source, the Mapes Committee declares that “Statistics have been presented to this committee to show that, based on the per capita basis, the taxes paid by the people of Washington compare favorably in amount with the taxes paid by the citizens of other municipalities, and in some instan-es exceed the amount paid by such ciuzens. Various methods have been followed to arrive at this con- clusion, none of which appears to this committee as being a reliable basis for comparison of relative tax burdens. One of another city and still the small city may have within its borders much more taxable wealth than'the larger city.” It is_appropriate to point out here that while that may be the case, the committee mentions no specific instance of its being true. It would be inter- esting and valuable for all who deal in comparative tax statistics to know the names of two otherwise normal American cities, one of which has much more taxable wealth and half the popu- lation of the other, unless the city with greater population and less taxable wealth were Washington, with its only great industrial plants (the Govern- ment workshops) and an extraordinary area of valuable real estate (the Na- tional holdings) exempt from taxation. Spurns Per Capitas. Continuing, the Mapes Committee declares thal “If any consideration is to be given at all to per capita taxa- tion, it should be confined to the per capita taxes levied on real property While the per capita taxes have been ! computed by Mr. Lord, of which men- tion will be found on another page of this report, for reasons already stated, the committee does not believe it is & reliable basis for comparison of relative | tax burdens. Is the Mapes Committee out of step with everybody else regarding the value of per capita figures, or is everybody else out of step with the Mapes Com- mittee? The per capita basis of presenting and comparing assessment and tax statistics cities has been followed by the s Bureau for 29 years and is still the accepted method today. “We find the per capita figures most in_ demand,” Lemuel A. Carruthers, expert chief of the Division of Financial Statistics of Cities, Census Bureau, tells The Star. The Congressional Joint Committee on Fiscal Relations of 1915 adopted it The per capita figures are regarded as more expressive than any other method of comparison. The officials at the Cer Bureau point out that this is particularly true at a time like the present, when a new census of popula- tion has just been completed, afford- ing, as it does, an accurate population divisor. Furthermore, the Census Bureau’s re- port on financial statistics of cities in- cludes in its introduction the following statement “The form of presentation has been approved by a Census Advisory Com- mittee chosen from the International Association of Comptrollers and Ac- counting Officers."” Only Averages Are Given. ‘The Mapes Committee does make per capita comparisons, but these, in addi- tion to being repudiated by the com- mittee, are confined to averages. It is, of course, difficult to form an estimate of relative burdens between cities by comparing averages alone. The fair procedure would be to state per capitas for each of.the cities compared. the Mapes Committee fails to do. There is another form of comparison, that differs from both the methods |chosen by the Mapes Committee and by the Bureau of Efficiency. That is the comparison, based ports, and comparing per capitas of actu tax levies, total revenue, total expenditures, etc. The per capita com- parison 1s necessary only when large cities are compared with small cities. Actual levies can be compared when cities are close together in population. Differences in population naturally mean differences in amount of tax levies. The per capitas, in such cases, are valuable in determining the spread of the tax levy over the population Had the Mapes Committee cared to print the exact per capitas, instead of mere averages, the result would hown that Washington's fotal per capita exceeds that of half | the cities included in the comparison, closely approximating that of three others And now, as to the third point of difference, specific as between the Bu- reau of Efficiency method and the Mapes_Committee_method, concerning OUTSTANDINGC > If's Vacuum Sealed ROWNING & BAINES Orienia Cotice £ Exceptional Domestic Nu-way Wl Years Successful Heating CLEANLINESS, COMFORT CON- VENIENCE, SILENCE plus ECONOMY DOMESTIC 12 miles out Georgia Ave. Ext. NO OTHER PHONE LOCATIONS ASHTON 133 SERVICE CORP. their | This, | on ‘census re- | i population of other cities (not, &s the | the inclusion, for purposes of com- The pressure to which | Mapes Committee says, by the “assess- | parison, of ‘Government _tax-exempt property in computing Washington’s total assessment and of the Govern- ment’s lump-sum contribution in com- puting the total tax levy. The Mapes Committee casts aside }such inclusions as being beyond the | pale. | On this point the Bureau of Eff- clency speaks as follows: *. . . It is manifestly unfair to compare tax rates and tax revenues in Wash- | ington with those of other cities with- | out taking into consideration _the | large property holdings of the Fed- eral Government, which are exempt from taxation. To establish comparable essary | to” determine and include the amount | the Federal Government would pay in | taxes to the District of Columbia on | its property holdings used for the trans- | actions of the Nation's business if it were subject to tax. Therefore, two | computations of adjusted assessed valu- | ations were made, the first on the basis | of Washington's assessed valuation per | capitaexclusive of all Federal prop- | erty holdings, and the second on the basis of Washington’s assessed valua- | tion per capita, including the property | holdings of the Federal Government other than park property and property used for the exclusive benefit of the | District government.” | The Mapes Committee said: “The | committee cannot agree with the con- | tention that the Federal real estate or | property should be used in the com- | parison of relative tax burdens. The | buildings owned by the Federal Govern- | ment would be practically useless to | any one but the Government. They I city may have one-half the population | have practically no market value. The | only value they have, except for Go | erment purposes, is scrap value. They | were not erected by any one engaged |in business for profit and cannot be considered in the same class for siruc- tures for orc.nary business enterprise, Under such conditions it is decidedly unsound to 1se the cost or reproduc- tion value of these buildings in any comparison of relative assessed vaiues or tax burcens. Furthermore, much of the land value upon which these Government buildings stand was created by the Federal Government, and due consideration cegtainly should be given to this fact by Congress.” The Bureau's Method. In its 1930 report, the Bureau of Ef- ficiency computed the “tax liability” of the Federal Government as a municip: taxpayer in connection with the ordi- nary costs of government of the mu- nicipality at $8865,722, holding that it would be “manifestly unfair” to com- pare tax rates and tax revenues in Washington with those in other cities without taking into consideration the large property holdings of the Federal Government which are exempt from taxation. One of the most interesting features of this 1930 report, however, was the bureau’s method and conclusions relat- ing to a determination of “the Federal Government's liability on account of the loss of revenue and on account of ex- traordinary expenditures occasioned by the fact that Washington is the Na- tional Capital” The two items to be considered in this connection, the re. port declared, were (1) the loss of rev- enue on account of excess ordinary real property exemption, and (2) the cost of excess park acquisition and mainte- nance, “Assessing” Tax-free Property. The bureau found that valuations of exempt properties in other cities are only “approximately correct” because assessors do not, as a rule, value such tax-exempt property as carefuly as they would value taxable property. The bureau, therefore, sought to compare ratios of exempt taxable property in the | various cities in order to determine Washington’s excess of ordinary ex- emptions and the amount of such ex- cess. The bureau found that Wash- ington has a higher ratio of exempt to real property than any other city com- pared. the valuation of all its exempt property being more than one-half the total assessed valuation of taxable real property. It subtracted from this total the valuation of real property holdtngs of the United States used for the trens- | action of Federal business, and obtained a figure which it called “ordinary real property exemptions.” _Washington's ratio of exempt to taxable real prop- erty comparable to that of other cities was computed to be 19.74 per cent, while the average ratio of exempt to taxable real property in the other cities was 17.35 per cent. The difference, 2.39 per cent, represented Washington's ex- cess over the other cities, and applying this percentage to the total assessed | valuation of taxable real property the bureau obtained a figure, $34,388,3T which represented the value of Wash- ington's excess ordinary real property exemption in 1928. Loss of Tax Revenue. By adding the value of certain ac- quisitions by ure was raised to $45,000,000 in round numbers to represent the valuation of Washington’s _excess ordinary real property exemptions for 1932. The bu- reau then computed that the loss of tax revenue on this account would amount to $773,581. The bureau concluded that the “ex- traordinary_expenditures occasioned by MONE Construction Loans. L. W. Groomes, 9 Eye St. to Loan on First Mortgage. PAINT Preserve and Beautify use BAY STATE PAINT It covers more surface and wears more years than most paints. One hundred per cent pure lead and zinc. 32 beautiful colors besides black and white. BAY STATE Special Red Roof Paint Stops Roof Leaks | $1.50 Gallon BAY STATE Inorout Enamel Dries hard in four hours. Twenty- seven beautiful colors. Expert Paint Advice Free MUTH 710 13th St. N. Premises 1514-16-18-20 L Street Northwest and 1117-19 14th Street Northwest WRECKING-~, Bargains in LUMBER PLATE GLASS BRICK = Plumbing Bath Room Fixtures Boilers Pipe and Radiation—Doors and Sash Structural Steel We still Marshall FINAL CLEAN-UP 40 Years' Heating Ezperience 1708 Conn, Ave. | Wm. H. Gottlieb POtomac 2048 Marcsger u-lARRlS WRECKING CO. § 361 Pa. Ave. Phones NAt. 9196 and Lincoln 4093 have 2 lot of rood Lumber at our Jobn PL job as low as $8 per thousan lesmen l-l;':me " Y the United States since | 1928 of tax-exempt properties this fig- | the fact that Washi tional Capital,” and extraordinary expendilurcs as being the | cost of excess park maintenance and the cost of excess park devclopment, could fairly be represented by a figure amounting to $544,088. The total “lia- bility” of the Federal Government was computed by the Bureau of Efficiency a3 amounting to $10,183,391. Other Intangible Obligations. While the Bureau of Efficiency’s ef- forts to select a tangible um repre- isenting the Federal obligation to Wash- ington were obviously based on the de- sire to be fair to everybody, those who have presented Washington's case to Congress_heretofore have always con- tended that there is a special obliga- tion upon the Nation to maintain and develop the Capital that results from the circumstances of the creation of the Capital and which is coupled with and measured by the Nation’s absolute control of Washington. These citizens have argued that the | true basis of the Nation's obligation of | proportionate contribution toward the | maintenance and development of the | Capital is not solely or primarily un- | taxed ownership of District real estate, | | through a_substantial and continuous | | obligation does arice in connection with | {such owership. The strongest obliga- |tions resting upon the Nation are equitable in their nature and based pri- | marily on the circumstances of the | Capital's creation and th> treatment of | the Capital by the Nition ever since | the birth of the Nation's city. | The Nation's Intention. The general Government, by the fact of planning a magaificent Capital, covering a large area and character- ized by broad strceis, avenues and reservations to an extent unsuitable for a self-rupporting commercial city, and by founding the Capital in a place comparatively uninhabited, as well as by the terms of the bargain with the | owners of the soil, and by the de:lara- !tions of its representatives at the { founding of the city and afierward | showed an intention to build up a Na- tional City, at the Nation’s expense, on a grand ccile, irrecpective of the future population the District. ‘The pitul as to be primanly a center of Federal | action, "and occupation of the ! ground by settlers was merely incidental to _this great purpose. It was to be a meeting place for the | use, convenience and entertainment of | the people of the entire Union, and the expense of its support and adornment was not to be limited by the scanty re sources of what permanent population | { it might acquire, | The original owners of Washington donated five-sevenths of and yielded the right of self-govern- | ment to the Nation on the understand- ing and implied agreement that the | Nation was to build up here a magnifi- cent Capital at its own expense, reim. bursing itself from the proceeds of the ysale of donated lots. A pretentious city | was planned and lots were sold by the | Government on the strength of this understanding. For three-fourths of a | century the Nation violated or neg- | | lected the obligations which it had thus | |incurred. In" 1878 the Government, | { which had in the beginning impliedly undertaken to meet all the expenses of capital making and then shifted that | burden, in the main, upon private citi- zens, decided that justice required it to | gton is the “Na- specilying such Washington's Equitles. | Study of the equitable foundations | upon which proportionate contribution | | toward capital maintenance by the Na- tion is based brings the conviction that no fixing of that proportion can be just which ignores national neglects of obli- | gations in the past in determining the equitable measure of proportionate con- | tribution for the future. | As an annual contributor to mu- | nicipal maintenance in a definite and liberal amount the Nation has since 1878, under the wise and fair legisla- tion of that year, surpassed other na- | tions in this form of patriotic expendi- | ture, The result has been to restore the Nation's self-respect as a_fulfiller of Capital obligations, and to build up | the Capital of today, in which every | American has a proprietary interest and in respect to which every American now feels a proprietary pride. | | Obligation Follows Power. | The second obligation, that which is coupled with and measured by the de- gree to which the Nation controls its Capital, is extraordinarily great in Washington's case. | The teaching of these comparisons is that obligation is coupled with power; 1 e, fmancial obligations is coupled with political power. If the | | COME TO OUR BRICK PLUMBING BATHTUBS FLOO All used material is systemati at our yards—easily accessible cleaned, whole bricks, flooring, NN NN NN NN YN XN NNN YN NN NN NN N YR NI Y Y XK XN *4kkkkkk All Yards Open Satur the city's soil | gets pay one-half of the District’s expenses. | ——— R P PErT T T L L T T T T R R R R R * Used Material ALL YOUR BUSINESS NEEDS FRAMING SHEATHING EASILY SEEN—EASILY SELECTED can furnish any length 2x4, 2x6, MAIN OFFICE—15th BRIGHTWOOD—5925 Naticn controls, it pays; and to the extent that it controls, it pay Washinzton is the only capital in the world in which, if certain pro- posed pelicles prov the N would do all of the none of the peying Fraace to pay without co some men would have the States control without paying. The assumption and cxercise of ab- solute anu cxclusive legislative power by the cigami: act were coupled with recoguition of a pre-exi tinumg financiai chligation. The Na- tion cannot equilably repudiate or re- duce to a min.mum its financial obliga- tion and retiin and execcise its full despotic and exclusive power to tax and to govern. Such equitzble considerations not be as easily reduced to ta Par | sums in dollars and cents, as the Bure>u of Efficiency succeeded in doing by its method. Nor, on the other hand. can the Federal contribution to District revenues be entirely discarded comparisons of the financial responsi- bility ard burden of this relatively sm:1. community, dependent for its very ex- {stence upon the Federal Government, are made with those of indcpendent, elf-governirg, self-taxing end seif- supporting citles, |NEW UNIVEfiéITY CLUB OFFICERS TO BE NAMED Entertainment Features Also Ar- ranged for Session Next Saturday Night. Election of officers and entert features will mark the tw annual meeting of the U al the club house_next ning. Proctor I of the club, and forr missioner, will presid The Committee on Nom: proposed a list of eight nar which a class of five governo; chosen. They are J Ibert L. 7 s of the C o will be chos Four member Admissions a list of eight nominces s Charles S. Baker, Charles Barnard, George B. Du Bois, Henry H. Elliott, Northcutt Ely, W. S. Hoge, 3d; Alex- ander Robeson and Wellstood Whi CAPPER TO AID IDLE First Book of Volunteers’ “Helping Hand” Tickets. Senator Arthur Capper, chairman of the Senate District Committee, yester- day was presented with the first book of “helping hand” tickets by the Vol- unteers of America. The tickets, it was explained by Capt. Arthur E. Wise, in making the presentation, are designed to protect charitably inclined ~Washingtonians from imposters and professional beg- gars. Each of the tickets calls for two meals, a bed and a bath at the relief mission, 471 Pennsylvania avenue northwest One ~Cent a Day Brings $100 a Month Nearly One-Half Million Dollars Already Paid in Cash Benefits. Benefits of $100 each month— $1,000 to $1,500 at death, at a cost of ‘only $3.65 & year (just one cent a day), are being featured in an acci- dent’ policy issued by the National Protective Insurance Asscciation the largest and oldest company of its kind in the world. They have already paid nearly one-half million dollars In cash benefits. Send No Money. For 10 days free inspection of policy, simply send name, age, ad- dress, beneficiary’s name and rela- tionship. No medical examination or other red tape. Read the policy and then decide whether you will keep it or return it without obliga tion. Write National Protective In surance Association, 1152 Scarritt Bldg., Kansas City, Mo., today while special offer is still open—Adver- tisement. 3 YARDS FOR , SASH DOORS RADIATION RING ically and conveniently stocked for your careful selection. We 2x8, 2x10 and 2x12. Also good sheathing, doors, windows, etc. Large Selection ' Lowest Prices ¢ & H NE. & C SW. Ga. Ave. DOWNTOWN—6th ek A e sk e Ak AR Tk A Ak ek A Ak Ak Ak A Ak Rk Ak kA kK days Until 2:30 P.M. jgkkkhsdn o | 20t & Bunker Drive Out Michigan Ave. Road, or take Detached Homes, Vegetables. e SEE THEM TODAY You Can Buy One of These Homes for the Rent You Are Now Paying. Why Not Come Out? Open Fireplaces, Kitchens, General Electric Refrigerators . . . Plenty Room for Flowers e L MONTHLY PAYMENTS Hill Road N.E. to 20th and Bunker Hill new bus line. Lots 40x107 to Alley Porcelain and Come Out!