The Apportionment Analyzed And Criticised

Eu. CoiiüEk: - If anyoiic liua uny doubt of tlio unfairness of the actiofi of the present board of supervisors in its apportiounient of the state and county taxes, let liim examine carefully the tablc of equalization adoptcd by the board. Bear in mimi Uiat it ia upon the equaUud assessnieut tliat the state and county taxes are apportioned. Now look at tho table In the township of Sylvau (I quote the Courier's figures of two weeks ago) the total assessed ruluation of real and personal property is $l,277,4G0, wliich is by the board equalized at $1,100,01)0, lea ving $87,400 of property in that townghip upon whicli the owneri pay no tax. Ia tlie township of York tlie real and personal astessed yaluation is $1,025,200, wblch is equalized by the board at $1,150,000, leaving $109,200 of taxable property in that township upon whicli, by the iiction of this board, the ownersfpay no state or county taxes. In the township of Salem tlie atseised valuation of real and personal property is $1, 040,67b, and the equalized raluatlon upon whieh state and county taxes are paid is $1,150,000, making thereby the tax-payers of Salein pay state and county taxes upon $109, 325 of property whieh h:is no existence whatever In that township. ín the City of Ypsilanti, lst district, the real and personal property assessment is $1,718,950 and the equalized assessnient upou whieh stite and county taxes must be paid is $1,880,000, making $1G1,O5O whicli has no existence tliere and upon whieh taxes must be paid by the tax-payers. Frora the above, whieh are only examples, it is perfectly evident that the taxpayers of Salem and Ypsilanti lst district are paying taxes upon the property of the citi.ens of Sylvan and York. In the lst district (lst and 2d wards) Of this Ihe equalized assessnient is !-'7,050 less than the actual assessnient. In the 2d district (ud and Uli wards) the equalized assessnient is $75,050 less than the actual assessuient. Ilere are over $100,000 worth of actual property in the above districts which pays no state or county tax whatever, wliile In the 3d district (5th and 6th wards) the tax-payers pay state and county taxes upon the equalized assessnient which is $2,104 more than the actual assessment, or actual assessable property of the district. Iïenieniber that the board of review which poned upon and corrected the supervisor's rolls of this city, extended lo the wliole city, and if its aetion was wrong in one district it was equally wrong in all, and all should have been treated alike. But we venture the statement that that board of review, which was one of the ablest this city ever had, knew more of the value of property in this city than the cnliie board of supervisors. Tlie marnier in which this equalized assessnient is made is very unfair lowards the tax-payers of this county. C'onsider that the assessments are fust made by the supervisors of the respective townships and cities. Then the board of review, composed of as good men and good judies ofi)ioperty as live in the respective townships or cities, revise in detail the roll, examining eaeh individual assessnient, employing theirbest combined judgmaat in affirming or correcting it. Hut when the rolls reach the great and very wise dignified board of supervisors, and that board, without examining in detail the rolls, and beinjr probably Ignora] t of the individuals and the worth of their propklI), mia luui sinKe oü $150,000 as though it were a mere trille hardly worth their condescension to consider, theieby imposiner additional and unjust taxes upon I)ersons already taxed their just sliare, and reüeving from taxation those who should pay their just share. To make tliia matter plain let us take an example of its oractical workinffs. ouppose uie suue auu eounty raxes lor this year to be two per cent. (they ure very much less) upon the wliole actual assessed valuation of ihe oounty. (By knowing the aggregate assessment and aggregate taxcs to be raised the percentage is easily deterniined.) Suppose Jones owns a farm in one townghip worth $2,000 and Brown owns a farm In another township worth also $2,000. Uotli farms are, as the law requires, assessed to their full value by the supervisor. Ench assessment is carefully reviewed by the board of review of the respective townshios, and the assessraents aflirined at $2,000 each. They then como before the board of supervisors tor equali.ation and apportionment of state and county taxes, which is as wesupposed two per cent. ii pon the wliole aggregate as sessments of all the supervisors as corrected by the board of review. Now it is evident to everyone that a fair and just equalization and apportionment would be two per cent. upon each assessment whic-h would require Jones and Brown to eacli pay $40, uiakiim $30 taxes. Th is would be rigut. But tlie wise board of supervisors proceed toequalize the assessment, and make au "equalizcd assessment" aud saj'8 that Jones's equalized assessment is $1,000 and Brown's eqalized assessment is $.'),000, and ttiat upon these equalized assessments each shall pay two per cenf. since tliere are only $4,000 to pay $80 taxes. Note the resulta. Jones who is worth $2,000 pays a two per cent. tax upon $1.000, making $20- that is he pays no tax on one-half bis properly - and Brown pays a two per cent. tax on $3,000, making $00, thereby paying $20 taxes upon property which he does not possess. In fuct, by the action of the board of superviso s he is unjustly deprived of $20, it beiiij; the additional amount Jones slioulcl pay, and what Brown is compelled to pay upon Jones's property by this un-equalized assessment. But, perhaps, it is claimcd that $1,000 of Jones's property is not exempt f rom taxalion - thtitlie pays a percentage upon the entire $,000 as does alsu Brown - but that the percentage of tax is different. If this position is true it in nu way alters the injustice. If the board ot supervisors hadpermitted tlie assessiiR'iil to reinaiu as tliey were fairly made, each would have pakl oue half of the t:ixes, whereas by their action they have made Brown pay three times as tnueh as .Iones, since Jones's equulizcd assssmenl is $1,000 and Brown's $3,000. Theretore of the $80 taxes Jones's actual valué, $2,000, pays one-fouith, $20, while Browu'l actual valué, $2,000, pays three-fourths, $00. Turn it whatever way you wil!, it is an injustice and extortion as to lirowu. 8o we repeat that by the unjust aud uufair action of the board of supervisors tlie taxpayers of Salem and Ypsllanti lst district are paying taxes upon the property ol the citizensof Sylvau and York. Where tliere has been an abuse of the as8.?ssing power by the supervisor and board of review it is just and proper that the board of supervisors shouhl correct it, but it is not possible that it exista to the extent of from $50,000 to $100,000 in a single township or district. While persons liere are howling so loudly hIm.iii unjust taxation by the general government, it would be well to examine matten noarer home and we to what unjust and itnfitir taxation the board of supervisors of this county is subeottajrand burdening a portion of its taxpayers aud favoring othors :n nu w:iy deserving it. Sucii unjust equ&llzation was never conteinplated by the law, and It is au abuse of power ÏOI whicli the boards of supervisors ui Washtenaw county have tor years had an uncuviable and unsavory notoriety.