SOME PROBABLE EFFECTS OF THE EXEMPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS FROM TAXATION IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK A REPORT PREPARED FOR THE COMMITTEE ON TAXATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK BY ROBERT MURRAY HAIG, Ph.D. Instructor in Economics Columbia University NEW YORK 1915 ^< V^^^c^v^ -^ iM-C PRESS OF CLARENCES. NATHAN, INC., NEW YORK. 4651-15-2,000 (N) COMMITTEE ON TAXATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK Appointed April 10, 1914 BY HONORABLE JOHN PURROY MITCHEL, MAYOR ALFRED E. MARLING, Chairman FREDERIC C. HOWE, Secretary EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, Chairman, Executive Committee Robert S. Binkerd George Cromwell* Frank Harvey Field Joseph N. Francolini John J. Halleran Hamilton Holt Jeremiah W. Jenks Ardolph L. Kline Frederick C. Leubuscher Walter Lindner Cyrus C. Miller George V. Mullan Louis Heaton Pink Lawson Purdy David Rumsey Oscar R. Seitz Frederic B. Shipley Robert E. Simon Franklin S. Tomlin Charles T, White Delos F. Wilcox Collin H. Woodward LAURENCE ARNOLD Resigned January 12, 1915. TANZER, Executive Secretary. ^< v^^^<^^ -^u 465!-15-2,000 (N) COMMITTEE ON TAXATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK Appointed April 10, 1914 BY HONORABLE JOHN PURROY MITCHEL, MAYOR ALFRED E. MARLING, Chairman FREDERIC C. HOWE, Secretary EDWIN R. A. SELIGMAN, Chairman, Executive Committee Robert S. Binkerd George Cromwell* Frank Harvey Field Joseph N. Francolini John J. Halleran Hamilton Holt Jeremiah W. Jenks Ardolph L. Kline Frederick C. Leubuscher Walter Lindner Cyrus C. Miller George V. Mullan Louis Heaton Pink Lawson Purdy David Rumsey Oscar R. Seitz Frederic B. Shipley Robert E. Simon Franklin S. Tomlin Charles T. White Delos F. Wilcox Collin H. Woodward LAURENCE ARNOLD TANZER, Executive Secretary. Resigned January 12, 1915. PREFACE This study is, in the main, an attempt to secure from an analysis of the assessment rolls for 1914 as much information as possible about the probable effects of the adoption of the plan to reduce the tax rate on buildings. It originated in a request by Professor Edwin R. A. Seligman, Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Committee on Taxation of the City of New York, made to Mr. Lawson Purdy, President of the Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments, for data illustrating the effects of the adoption of such a plan upon the taxes payable by the owners of high buildings, tenements and single-family dwellings. In selecting the samples which should be used for this purpose the advice of Mr. Walter Lindner and Mr. Robert E. Simon, members of the Com- mittee on Taxation, was secured, particularly in regard to the data pre- sented in five of the Manhattan sections (the "Sky-Scraper" Section, the Riverside Drive Section, the Fifth Avenue Section, the Section of Side Streets East of Fifth Avenue and the Mount Morris Park Section). In selecting the samples. representative of conditions in the boroughs other than Manhattan, the following method was followed. The re- lationship of building value to the value of improved land in the given assessment section was ascertained. Then, with the aid of the insur- ance atlas, a homogeneous group of parcels was sought, whose relation- ship of building to land value approximated that of the assessment sec- tion in which it was located. This group was made the sample from that section. All of the data thus gathered were turned over to the writer for analysis and comment. During the course of the study it seemed desirable, in order to make the investigation even more representative and to furnish information in regard to the effects in particular sections in which various members of the committee were especially interested, to add several new Man- hattan samples — the three tenement sections, the two apartment house sections and four new single-family dwelling sections. As a result, the criticism may be urged that the data presented is not well balanced, too much attention being devoted to the effects upon single-family houses in Manhattan. But this should mislead no one for definite statements are made as to the relative importance of this element. The writer desires to acknowledge his indebtedness to Mr. Purdy not only for his aid in supervising the preparation of the assessment data but also for his unfailing kindness in answering the numberless queries which inevitably arise in prosecuting an investigation of this type. Thanks are also due to Mr. Benjamin C. Marsh for exact information furnished in regard to the nature of the proposed plan. Finally it must be confessed that it is with some trepidation that the study is submitted, because of the lack of the opportunity for ade- quate checking. The mass of statistics submitted for analysis and the very limited time available made it necessary to delegate a substantial share of the arithmetical calculations. Doubtless errors will be found but the writer bespeaks the indulgence of his critics on the ground of the speed which was demanded both in writing and in printing. Robert Murray Haig. New York City, September 8, 1915. OUTLINE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS Page L Introduction 11 A. The proposal 11 B. Possible effects of the proposed law upon the distribution of tax burdens. . 12 C. Method of ascertaining the redistribution of the tax burdens. 13 (1) The significance of the ratio between land values and improvement values 13 (2) The district for which the standard ratios should be calculated .... 14 D. The standard ratios 15 II. Effects in the city as a whole under certain assumed conditions 18 A. Effects upon the tax burdens of the boroughs 18 (1) Increases and decreases 18 (2) The assessed values 20 (3) The tax rates 20 (4) The amounts of taxes payable 22 B. Effects upon the tax burden of various types of property 24 C. Summary 24 III. Effects in Manhattan under certain assumed conditions 26 A. Tax rates 26 B. Distribution of burden among the elements of the tax base 27 C. Effects in the various assessment sections of the borough 27 D. Effects in selected sections of the borough 31 (1) Sky-scraper section 31 (2) Tenement sections 35 (a) Upper east side section 35 (b) Rivington Street section 37 (c) Houston Street section 38 (3) Apartment sections 40 (a) Elevator apartment section 40 (b) Walk-up apartment section 41 (4) Sections of single family houses 42 (a) Riverside Drive section 42 (b) Fifth Avenue section 44 (c) Section of side streets east of Fifth Avenue 46 (d) Section of side streets off Riverside Drive 50 (e) Section of side streets west of Central Park 53 (f) Section of side streets east of Lexington Avenue 54 (g) Section in Washington Square district 56 (h) Mount Morris Park section 57 E. Summary 60 IV. Effects in the Bronx under certain assumed conditions 61 A. Tax rates 61 B. Distribution of the burden among the elements in the tax base 62 C. Effects in the various assessment sections of the borough 62 D. Effects in selected sections of the borough 66 (1) Sample district from Assessment Section Nine 66 (2) " " " " " Ten 68 (3) " " " " " Eleven 70 (4) " " " " " Twelve 72 (5) " " " " " Fifteen 73 (6) " " " " " Seventeen 75 E. Summary 77 Page V. Effects in Brooklyn under certain assumed conditions 78 A. Tax rates 78 B. Distribution of the burden among the elements in the tax base 79 C. Effects in the various assessment sections of the borough 79 D. Effects in selected sections of the borough. 84 (1) Sample district from Assessment Section Five 84 (2) " " " " " Six 85 (3) " " " " " Eight 87 (4) " " " " " Twelve 88 (5) " " " " " Sixteen 90 (6) " " " " " Nineteen 91 (7) " " " " " Twenty 93 (8) " " " " " Twenty-three 94 E. Summary 96 VI. Effects in Queens under certain assumed conditions 97 A. Tax rates 97 B. Distribution of the burden among the elements in the tax base 98 C. Effects in the various assessment sections of the borough 98 D. Effects in selected sections of the borough 101 (1) Sample district from Ward One 101 (2) " " " " Two 102 (3) " " " " Three 103 (4) " " " " Four 105 (5) " " " " Five 106 E. Summary 108 VII. Effects in Richmond under certain assumed conditions 109 A. Tax rates 109 B. Distribution of the burden among the elements in the tax base 110 C. Effects in the various assessment sections of the borough 110 D. Effects in selected sections of the borough 113 (1) Sample district from Ward One 113 (2) " " " " Two 114 (3) " " " " Three 116 (4) " " " " Four 117 (5) " " " " Five 119 E. Summary 120 VIII. Various disturbing factors taken into account 121 IX. The significance of the foregoing data for certain economic classes in the com- munity 124 A. Introductory 124 (1) The necessity of considering the incidence of the tax 124 (2) The incidence of the real estate tax 124 B. Significance for real estate owners 128 (1) Owners who occupy their own property 129 (2) Owners who rent their property 132 (3) Owners of vacant land 132 C. Significance for renters 133 D. Significance for prospective real estate owners 134 APPENDIX Page Detailed information concerning the eflfects of the proposed plans to untax buildings upon the taxes payable by owners of parcels in the various selected sections .... 137 I, Manhattan 138 Sky-scraper section 138 Upper east-side tenement section 145 Rivington Street section 148 Houston Street section 151 Elevator apartment section 153 Walk-up apartment section 154 Riverside Drive section 155 Fifth Avenue section 156 Section of side streets east of Fifth Avenue 159 Section of side streets off Riverside Drive 169 Section of side streets west of Central Park 173 Section of side streets east of Lexington Avenue 178 Section in Washington Square district 181 Mount Morris Park section 183 11. The Bronx 190 Sample district from Assessment Section Nine 190 " Ten 194 Eleven 196 Twelve 199 Fifteen 201 " " " " " Seventeen 203 III. Brooklyn 205 Sample district from Assessment Section Five 205 Six 208 Eight 211 Twelve 214 Sixteen 216 Nineteen 220 Twenty 224 Twenty-three 227 IV. Queens 229 Sample district from Ward One 229 " Two 231 * Three 234 " "" " " Four 236 " Five 240 Richmond 243 Sample district from Ward One 243 " Two 246 " Three 248 " Four 251 " Five 252 I. INTRODUCTION The proposal to reduce the tax rate on buildings involves a differen- tiation among the elements of the base upon which the taxes are levied. The adoption of the proposal would increase the taxes of some and decrease those of others. The problem is to determine which sections of the city, which types of property and which economic classes vv^ould pay greater taxes and which smaller in consequence of the adoption of the plan. A. THE PROPOSAL The manner in which it is proposed to reduce the tax rate on im- provements is stated in this language in the bill as introduced in the legislature in 1915 : "The board of aldermen shall, for the year nineteen hundred and sixteen, in fixing the rate of taxation on real estate in the City of New York, exclusive of special franchises, so apportion the rate that the rate on the difference between the value of such real estate, with its improvements, and the vafue of such real estate wholly unimproved, assessed and provided for in section eight hun- dred and eighty-nine of this act, shall be ninety per centum of the rate on the vq^lue of such real estate wholly unimproved. Every year subsequent to nineteen hundred and sixteen the rate on the difference between the value of such real estate with its improve- ments and the value of such real estate wholly unimproved shall be still further reduced ten per centum of the rate on the value of such real estate wholly unimproved, for eight consecutive years, and* in the ninth year it shall be reduced nine per centum of the rate on the value of such real estate wholly unimproved, until the rate on the difference between the value of such real estate with its improve- ments, and the value of such real estate wholly unimproved, shall be one per centum of the rate on the value of such real estate wholly unimproved ; and thereafter the board of aldermen shall so appor- tion the rate of taxation that the rate on the difference between the value of such real estate with its improvements and the value of such real estate wholly unimproved, shall be one per centum of the rate on the value of such real estate wholly unimproved."* It will be noted that this latest proposal practically eliminates the tax on buildings in ten years. The bills introduced in the years prior to 1915 contemplated the decrease of the rate "on buildings to one-half that on land by a series of five annual reductions of ten per cent. each. The proposed law, as interpreted by its sponsors, divides the tax base into three groups: in the first group are personal property and * Senate Bill, No. 1336, introduced by Mr. Heffernan. 11 special franchises, in the second, improvements (including the improve- ments of "corporations"*) and in the third, land value (including land value of corporations!) . At present the tax base consists of five items: ordinary land value, improvements, personal property, special fran- chises and real estate of corporations. It is the intent of the bill to increase the tax on group three (land) and decrease the tax on group two (improvements). The tax on group one (personal property and special franchises) is expected to remain constant. Both improvements and land are to be assessed at their full value and the share of the total burden which would fall to group two and group three is to be estimated. Then a calculation is to be made of the rates to be levied against groups two and three in order to produce the apportioned sum, the rate on improvements (group two) becoming progressively less than the rate on group three (land value) until finally eliminated except for a nominal figure. This figure, one per cent., is retained as a part of the tax base in order that the borrowing power of the city may not be afifected and in order to avoid constitutional difficulties in the way of the adoption of a plan to exempt improvements entirely. B. POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED LAW UPON THE DISTRIBUTION OF TAX BURDENS If the tax base were homogeneous, consisting of one kind of prop- erty only, or if each element in the base were evenly distributed among all the taxpayers in proportion to each, person's 'total holdings — each person owning part of each item in the tax base in exactly equal pro- portions — the adoption of "the proposed plan would cause no change in the amounts paid as taxes by the* individuals. There might be serious effects upon values, it is true, but each person's values would be affected in the same proportion and no discrimination between individuals would result. The principle may be illustrated by an arithmetical example. Suppose there were but three owners of taxable property in the city, A, B and C, and that their holdings were distributed as follows : ABC Ordinary land value $200,000 .$1,000,000 $5,000 Improvements 200,000 1,000,000 5,000 Personal property 20,000 100,000 500 Real estate of corporations 20,000 100,000 500 Special franchises 20,000 100,000 500 $460,000 $2,300,000 $11,500 In this case, in spite of the great differences in the size of the total holdings, the rate on any item in the tax base could be increased or de- creased without varying the amount which each individual would be called upon to pay. Even if all the taxes were levied on land, the tax *The "corporations" referred to are for the most part public utility companies, but some mis- cellaneous property is included. t This plan, it should be stated, is not considered final and unamendable. There are many among the supporters of the plan who feel that special franchises should be untaxed also and the charges of the public utilities correspondingly reduced. 12 bill of each individual would remain the same. It is true that the value of the land might be greatly depreciated, in consequence of the heavy- levy on the income from that source but each man's land would depre- ciate in the same proportion so that no inequality would result between individuals. Such a condition as that described in the illustration is very different from that which actually obtains in the City of New York. Individuals own taxable property in infinitely varying proportions. Complete even- ness in the distribution of ownership is almost an impossibility in a growing city. It never existed in any city after the first building was constructed and never can be more than approximated thereafter. It follows, therefore, that the proposed change will result in a redistribution of tax burdens. C. METHOD OF ASCERTAINING THE REDISTRIBUTION OF THE TAX BURDENS (1). The Significance of the Ratio Betzveen Land Values and Improvement Values This question then arises : What is the dividing line between the tax- payers whose bills would increase and the taxpayers whose bills would decrease in consequence of the addption of the proposal? It has been/ stated by some that to take the tax ofif buildings will benefit those individuals whose buildings are worth more than their land and will increase the taxes of those ^whose land is. assessed for more than the buildings. This is evidently based upon the assumption that the relationship, of the value of building^ to the value of land is one of equality, lots and houses being approximately equal in value. It is true that this relationship is present in 'a remarkably l^rge number of cases. It has even been formally stated as a principle that the' ideal improve- ment is one which equals -in cost the value of the lafid on which it stands.* However, this is far from universal and it is not the relation- ship between the value of land and improvements in the City of New York at present. Others have said that the ratio between total land values and total improvement values, be the terras equal or unequal, is the ratio which is of significance in this connection.f This is true if land and improvements are the only elements in the tax base. When there are other elements in the tax base, the significant ratio is that between the total value of those elements on which the rate is reduced and the total value of those elements on which the rate is increased. In New York, three other items are present: personal property, real estate of corporations, and special franchises. But according to the terms of the bill as introduced in 1915 and in the preceding years, special franchises * Richard M. Hurd, Principles of City Land Values (N. Y., 1903), p. 97. t E. g., Edward Polak, Reduction of Tax on Buildings in the City of New York, Annals of the American Academy, March, 1915, p. 186, et seq. 13 are grouped with personal property and the rate on these two classes of property is expected neither to increase nor decrease. If the higher rate on land values should result in their depreciation, however, this would mean a smaller total base, and a higher rate of taxation on per- sonal property and special franchises. For the present, nevertheless, let it be assumed that the values of land would not be diminished by virtue of the higher rate of the tax, the stimulating influence upon building and business activity being sufficient to counterbalance the depressing effect of the higher tax rate. In this case these two items, personal property and special franchises, might be eliminated from consideration. They form a separate part of the tax base, unaffected by the manipulations in the rates on the other items. The last element of the base, real estate of corporations, would be divided into its component parts, land and improvements, and added to the items of ordinary land value and im- provements. It is evident that the resulting totals should be used in calculating standard relationship. The first step, then, is to determine the standard ratio. Any piece of property in which the value of the building is greater in proportion to the value of the land than is the case in the general ratio arrived at would pay a smaller tax and any piece of property in which the land was a larger factor than in the general ratio would pay a greater tax than before. (2). The District for which the Standard Ratios Should be Calcidated But the problem is further complicated by the fact that the tax rates finally extended include rates levied for county purposes as well as for general city purposes.* There are five counties within the limits of the city whose expenses are met by a tax on the property which lies in their own boundaries. This results in a variation in the tax rates from county to county. Such being the situation, the question arises as to the jurisdiction for which the standard ratios between land and buildings should be calculated. Is the relation between land and improvements in the entire city the significant relation or is the relation in the county the proper one to be used in the comparisons? This is a matter of some importance for the proportion of land value to building value varies widely among the counties.f The plan under consideration contemplates no apportionment of general expenses among the counties on the full value basis, but rather a change in the general city rate. This involves a redistribution of the • In those years when there is a direct state tax, the amount apportioned to the city is treated as a general city charge. It is, therefore, unnecessary to treat the state tax separately for the purposes of this study. t If the general city expenses were to be apportioned among the counties on the basis of assessed valuations, buildings being included at their full value, and the discrimination between land and buildings being made in calculating the rate for each county, the result would be much greater differences between counties in the rates than at present. In this case the general ratios between land and buildings for the counties would be the factors of significance and the standard for com- parison in determining whose taxes would be increased and decreased. 14 burden of general city taxes among the boroughs but it insures that the tax for general city purposes shall be levied on each class of property at a uniform rate over the city. This means that so far as the general city taxes are concerned, the significant relationship is that of land values^ to building values in the city at large. The county taxes, being raised from the property within the county, would be redistributed in a different manner. The significant ratio here is that between land and buildings within the county limits. To determine, therefore, whether the adoption of the proposed plan to untax buildings will increase or decrease the taxes on a particular parcel of real estate, it is necessary to take into account both the county ratio and the general city ratio. For example, assume a piece of prop- erty in which the building value is 30 per cent, and the land value 70 per cent, of the total. Assume also that the county relationship is 25 and 75 per cent. This would mean lower county taxes. Assume the general city relationship to be 35 and 65 per cent. This would mean higher city taxes. To determine whether the total tax bill would be increased or decreased it would be necessary to compare the size of the increase with the size of the decrease. Or this may be done by the use of a composite ratio, computed from the general city ratio and the county ratio.* D. THE STANDARD RATIOS The following table gives the general percentages from which can be determined the standard relationship of improvement values to build- ing values in 1914 in the various boroughs of the City of New York and in the city at large if Standard Relationships Between Assessed Values of Improvements and Values OF Land in Various Subdivisions of New York City Percentage of Total Improvements (a) Land (a) Improvements Land Manhattan $1,657,719,056 $3,209,337,610 34.06 65.94 Bronx 274,612,870 357,871,385 43. 42 56. 58 Brooklyn 795,825,978 797,088,314 49. 96 50. 04 Queens 179,334,522 293,906,195 37. 89 62. 11 Richmond 38,087,988 41,655,683 47. 76 52. 24 Aggregate $2,945,580,414 $4,699,859,187 38.53 61.47 (a) These amounts include the land and improvements of corporations. The real estate of corporations divided between land and improvements, is as follows: Improvements Land Total Manhattan J45,390,936 $47,387,950 $92,778,886 Bronx 21,331,975 21,755,325 43,087.300 Brooklyn 8,198,205 13,229.155 21.427,360 Queens " 13.326,165 13,228,075 26.554.240 Richmond*.'. 1.400.615 1,406.575 2.807,190 Aggregate $89,647,896 $97,007,080 $186,654,976 * Cf. infra, p, 16. t Unless specifically stated, the assessment values and the tax rates used in this study are for the year 1914. These were the latest available when the data were gathered. 15 It will be seen from the table that any piece of real estate in Man- hattan, for example, will pay greater taxes for general city purposes under the new plan if the building represents less than 38.53 per cent, of the total value of the parcel. The same parcel will pay greater county taxes if the building represents less than 34.06 per cent, of the total value of both land and building. In cases where county taxes will be increased and general city taxes decreased, the net result may be determined by applying the tax rates and comparing the amounts of the increases and decreases. But this is a slow process. If it is desired to learn merely whether the total taxes are increased or decreased, without reference to the amounts of such increases or decreases, the end can be accompHshed by comparing the ratios of the particular parcels with a composite ratio, made up from the general city ratio and the county ratio. The general city taxes are much heavier than the county taxes. Consequently the dividing line between the parcels whose taxes would increase and those whose parcels w'ould decrease lies much nearer the general city ratio than the county ratio. Its exact position is determined by the relative size of the tax levies for city and county purposes.* The standard composite ratios are as follows : Standard Composite Ratios for the Various Subdivisions of New York City (a) Improvements Land Manhattan 38.34 : 61.66 Bronx 38.71 : 61.29 Brooklyn 39.44 : 60.56 Queens 38.49 : 61.51 Richmond 39.51 : 60.49 (a) These ratios are computed on the assumption that the tax rate on buildings is to be made half of that on land. If the tax rate on buildings were reduced to one per cent., these figures would be altered slightly, in no case so much as to affect unit figures. These ratios take into consideration all the important peculiarities of the boroughs, their differing tax rates and state of development. To determine, therefore, whether the taxes on a particular parcel of real estate in any borough will be increased or decreased by the adoption of the plan to reduce the tax on buildingsf it is only necessary to compare the relationship of assessed building value to assessed land value in that parcel with the standard composite ratio for that borough. Thus, in Manhattan, for example, any parcel in which the land is worth more * The proportion used is as follows: the levy for city purposes in the county is to the levy for county purposes as X is to the difference between the terms of the standard city ratio and the standard county ratio. X in this case represents an amount which may be added to the proper terms in the county or city ratios to form a new composite ratio. The matter is complicated by the fact that the city taxes charged to the property in the various counties vary with the extent to which the tax on buildings is reduced. This factor is of too slight importance, however, to affect the com- posite ratios seriously. ■j- To fifty per cent, of that on land, although the ratios are almost identically the same in case the ratio on buildings is reduced to one per cent, of that on land. 16 than 61.66 per cent, of the total value of the parcel will pay greater taxes and vice versa. The variation in the standard composite ratios for the various boroughs is relatively slight. The land factor is most important in Manhattan (61.66 per cent.) and of least importance in Richmond (60.49 per cent.), the difference between the extremes being slightly over one per cent. (1.17 per cent.). 17 II. EFFECTS IN THE CITY AS A WHOLE UNDER CERTAIN ASSUMED CONDITIONS Attention may now be turned to a consideration of the effects of transferring the tax to land. What will be the results of the change? Where will the tax bills be greater and where smaller and how great will the changes be? It should be borne in mind that the statements now to be made concerning the effects assume that the additional tax on land values will not have the effect of diminishing the assessed values. Later the probable readjustments in values will be taken into consideration.* A. EFFECTS UPON THE TAX BURDENS OF THE BOROUGHS The first point to be determined is the effect of the proposed plan upon the distribution of the taxes among the various boroughs of the city.t The accompanying map shows the boundaries of these sub- divisions. Which will pay the greater and which will pay the smaller taxes under the plan? (1). Increases and Decreases As has been seen|, the proposed plan leaves the distribution of county expenses untouched. Presumably they will be neither reduced nor in- creased. It is only in the distribution of the general city expenses among the boroughs that a change will result. In what direction these changes will occur can be readily determined by a comparison of the standard ratios for the boroughs with that of the city in general. The standard ratios are : Standard Ratios for the City of New York and for the Boroughs Improvements Land City of New York 38.5 : 61.5 Manhattan 34. 1 : 65. 9 Bronx 43.4 : 56.6 Brooklyn 50.0 : 50.0 Queens 37.9 : 62.1 Richmond 47. 8 : 62. 2 The boroughs which have a larger percentage of land than the city in general (61.5 per cent.) are, strangely enough, Manhattan and Queens.** This indicates that these two boroughs would be charged with a larger share of the city's general expenses than at present. The taxes in the other boroughs would be lightened. * Cf. infra, p. 121 et se.q. t The boroughs and counties are coterminous. % Cf. nupra, pp. 14-15. ** Manhattan is the most highly improved of the boroughs in proportion to its area, while Queens, Richmond alone excepted, is the most poorly improved. 18 MAP Showing the: 5 Boroughs OF THE City of New York BOROUGH AREA 1 In Acres In Sq. Miles MANHATTAN 14038 21.93 THE BRONX 26017 40.65 BROOKLYN 49680 77.62 QUEENS 75111 117.36 RICHMOND 36600 57.19 TOTAL 201446 314.75 How much the increases and decreases in the various boroughs would be, is a question whose answer involves somewhat elaborate calcu- lations. But since valuable data as to the probable effects upon tax rates and the weight of the burden upon the various classes of property in the tax base are at the same time obtained, the process may be profit- ably carried through. (2). The Assessed Values The assessed values of taxable property in the City of New York in 1914, arranged as they would be, were the proposed plan adopted, are presented in the following table : Assessed Values of Property Grouped in Accordance with the Specifications of THE Plan to Untax Buildings Group One- Personal Property and Special Franchises Group Two — Land, including Land of Corporations Group Three — Improvements, including Improvements of Corporations Total Manhattan (New York Co.) $569,962,364 Bronx 31,908,958 Brooklyn (Kings Co.) 117,557,703 Queens 21,361,189 Richmond 3,925,657 Aggregate $744,715,871 $3,209,337,610 357,871,385 797,088,314 293,906,195 41,655,683 $1,657,719,056 274,612,870 795,825,978 179,334,522 38,087,988 $5,437,019,030 664,393,213 1,710,471,995 494,601,906 83,669,328 $4,699,859,187 $2,945,580,414 $8,390,155,472 (3). The Tax Rates The tax rates would be more complicated than at present. The tax payer to-day is quoted a single figure for each borough — a rate secured by adding the county rate for that borough to the general city rate. Under the proposed plan there would be three tax rates for each borough: (1) one for personal property, which, presumably, would be the same as the rate under the present system; (2) a rate on land, higher than the first ; and (3) a rate on buildings lower than the first and one-half or one one-hundredth of the second, depending upon which plan was in force. The tax rates which would result from adoption of the plans under the assumed conditions* are set forth in the accompany- ing table.f The rate on personal property would remain everywhere the same as at present. If the tax rate on buildings were halved, the rate on land in Manhattan would increase approximately twenty- three per cent, (to 2.20) and if the tax on buildings were reduced to one one-hundredth, the rate on land would increase sixty-one per cent, (to 2.86). The rate on land in the Bronx would be less than the Man- hattan rate. The rates in the other three boroughs would be higher, the * Cf. supra, p. 18. t From the total levy in each case was subtracted the amount charged against Group One. The remainder was made one term of an equation, the other of which was the assessed value of land (Group One) multiplied by X plus the assessed value of buildings multiplied by one-half X or one one-hundredth X (as the case might be). The result was the rate on land. The rate on build- ings was one-half or one one-hundredth of this amount. 20 J2teE" iX""^ 05«0t^ (NMt^ t^Tfirt 500 rt^o < I>C B :a a :5 a > a : ::^M r??MM .?w>3 ^JSJi >^£3 >,aa >>aH >,a 9s -tsSa -wOd -lifla ^aa ^ao ^aa ^a aoo aoo aoo aoo ooo a o 5 fli rt^ Si r" M'-'w tjw^_j Hwu auo doo m m ill ill ill ill ill ill III Mi^ ^«£_ fertrt (i,p^« (n«Pi £pstf itfrt (i;«rt £«« 32§ O a <» S 0° ■3^ - cooit>- c^ lo lo Tj*cot>- Oi-to cc »o ''i^ io»o« ICO-* 050N (NO>-(< -HOltO SJod Sod Sod §QQ gQQ SqQ 3100 OI^Q (N (N Tt< O 00 CO rt_woo 05 ■OiO ■* cocq CO ci •- t-"'-<''d' t>ro"c OOOOCC TllOr t^OllN CO T»1 >ot>co mc^c^j 1-i o 03 -^J" t~ CO ^co OCD --;i>o -^Tjt-n »-Hcor^ ioioo cOi-«co UU^ OjTt^^H C>050^ i-H-jT^ -^rH C^I-^C^ 10»0»0 00000 ■^ -"^CCC^ ^H i-H rH »OiOCO 5cO(N iNO>ra t^h JQO C^ 00M 00»0 0000 00 lO '^COC^ (NCOrH Ot^CO 0020 00 CO (N ,— I 1-H 1-H Oi Tt< CO r"^*"'^" 5SSS5S cToTCTr io"iCiC (NGSiO OCOCO t^t^r^ CO^MCO "-H*^ "^"^"^ "^ Tt^ t}^ C0OSC5 Sqq ??qp ^qq g§2 00 rt 05 ooo'c^" oiioco ocDcq ro^oo r- . ^ ,., ....^ ■^ ^ »o ococo -^ to 00 cot-co »ooco ooooco tot^o t^»OT-( q?r-tco -^coco CO Tji CO CO cfrC^ O'do" co"co"oo t^'^TtC o'co'co" ^ (N (N '-I O fj< (^10^ -^ -^l* Tj< OIOCD Ot^ CD.-(_(M Or-._iM C0_COCO TlH^lOrf ;gt^ t^o -O -^COIN OCO^ :C3r, ocoio .-(.-1^ 30> (N05t)< -^TjiT)! H(N r-Too" §6 zo TjfCDOO lOlOrH t~CD-* —1000 ^ •* C-l O CD Tt< c>(No> r^'i'i-i •*-*00 OlOt^ •*05CD 0)1000 300 ooorf or^co ooooo oot^r jro COiOrtH CT^OO lOCO-H lOTfc <_o ■*'-i'0 o_t^Ti<_ co_io_» r-(Mc ;a) aoo-^ ■*{Nco oo"oo"od M-nt goo ^aa saa a o o sS5 -2 a a -S a a §, a a s a a ^ fl a ^01 ;aa ;nn ;Cih :oa J>> «>> «■>> ri'>> ago ago agg ago 5aa -Saa "aa -Sao, saa ^aa ^aa saa M'-"-' !»'-"-' W'-"-' W'-'M +jad +:,fla ^jdd ^aa floo doo doo dOo g«^ s^^ ^ss ^ss ^ss iss £tfe^ £«« ^H^ ^'^'^ ^^^ ^^^ tM Oa-S 3S- § ■3 S d s fH H ^ : •35 as =3.2 ^^■^5 iisi S^-o 23 B. EFFECTS UPON THE TAX BURDEN OF VARIOUS TYPES OF PROPERTY One more point calls for consideration at this place : viz., the effect of the proposed changes upon the amounts of taxes charged to the various types of property which enter into the composition of the tax base. With the aid of the graph these effects become apparent. PORTION OF TOTAL TAXES CARRIED BY VARIOUS ELEMENTS OF THE TAX BASE UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM AND UNDER THE PROPOSED PLANS TO UNTAX IMPROVEMENTS PRESENT SYSTEM Pi LAND 84- MILLIONS IMPROVEMENTS 52.8 MILLIONS RATE ON IMPROVEMENTS ONE-HALF RATE ON LAND pi LAND 104.1 MILLIONS IMPROVEMENTS 32.8 MILLIONS RATE ON IMPROVEMENTS ONE- ONE-HUNDREDTH RATE ON LAND Personal property would, under the assumed conditions, continue to pay the same amount as before. The share of land would increase from 84 to 104 millions, if the rate on buildings were halved, and to 136 millions, if the full plan were adopted. These increases, of course, are accompanied by exactly corresponding decreases in the share of general city taxes payable by buildings. C. SUMMARY It is seen, then, that, under the assumed conditions of unvarying values in the tax base, the adoption of the plan to untax buildings would result in a redistribution of general city expenses among the boroughs. 24 The taxes of Manhattan would be considerably increased and those of Brooklyn considerably decreased. Taxes in Queens would be very slightly increased and in the Bronx and in Richmond, slightly decreased. Tax rates on land would, under the plan to halve the rate on improve- ments, increase by amounts ranging from 42 points (Manhattan and the Bronx) to 47 points (Richmond). Under the plan to reduce the tax on buildings to one one-hundredth of the rate on land, the land rate would increase 109 points in Manhattan and the Bronx, 111 points in Queens, 118 points in Brooklyn and 122 points in Richmond. The rates on improve- ments in the case of the first plan would be approximately two-thirds of the present rates and under the full plan would be negligible. In the city at large, the adoption of the first plan* would increase the amount noW paid by land owners as taxes from 84 millions to 104 millions. The adoption of the full planf means the increase of this sum to 136 millions. * By this is meant the plan to reduce the tax on buildings to one-half the tax on land. t This is the reduction of the tax on buildings to one one-hundredth the tax on land. 25 III. THE EFFECTS IN MANHATTAN UNDER CERTAIN ASSUMED CONDITIONS* The increase in general city taxes which would fall to the share of Manhattan has already been discussed. f The effects within the borough will next be traced. A. TAX RATES The following graph| presents the results which may be anticipated upon the Manhattan tax rates in case the proposed plans to untax build- ings are adopted. MANHATTAN RATES UPON THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF PROPERTY UNDER THE PRES- ENT SYSTEM AND UNDER THE PROPOSED PLANS TO UNTAX BUILDINGS 3% O < ^/. D < -J in 2 o I p- r- a o D- i z o lO a _ in Q Z < J > o cc a J 4. Z o 10 tt D ; UJ D- O a: a z o 7) - ">/. s z 5 1 a 2 u a 5 PRESENT &-<&TEM RA-TE. ON R/\TE: on PROVEMELNTS IMPROVEMENTS ONE- LFR^TtONLAND ONE-HUNDREDTVi R'^TE ON L^NO p. 18. ■ The most important condition assumed is that the assessed values will not be disturbed. Cf. supra, trC/. supra, pp. 22-23. X The statistics upon which this graph is based are presented in detail in the table on p. 21. 26 B. DISTRIBUTION OF BURDEN AMONG THE ELEMENTS IN THE TAX BASE The share of the tax burden in Manhattan which is carried by per- sonal property, land and improvements under the present system and the changes that will be wrought by the adoption of proposed plans are set forth in the following graph : MANHATTAN DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES AMONG THE ELEMENTS OF THE TAX BASE UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM AND UNDER THE PROPOSED PLANS TO UNTAX BUILDINGS PRESENT SYSTEM l-rs Sl^3 LAND IMPROVEWIENTS PER50 PROPE lO.I MIL 57 MILLIONS E9.4 iVllLLiONS RATE ON IMPROVEMENTS ONE-HALF RATE ON LAND PERSONAL PROPERTY 10.1 MILLIONS LAND 70.5 MILLIONS IMPROVEMENTS 18.2 MILLIONS .RATE ON IMPROVEMENTS ONE-ONE-HUNDREDTH RATE ON LAND (a) ^474, 54-1. ST C. EFFECTS IN THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT SECTIONS OF THE BOROUGH For the purposes of assessment the Borough of Manhattan is divided into eight sections, whose boundaries are traced on the map on page 28. 27 ^OROUGW MANHATTAN 28 Tax Levies Upon the Real Estate (a) in the Various Assessment Sections of Manhattan Under thf Present System, and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Improvements, One-Half Rate on Improvements, One One- Hundredth Increases and Decreases Rate Rate on on Improvements, Improvements, One One- One-Half Hundredth Section 1: Land $9,771,736.30 $12,089,266.12 $15,751,851.38 Improvements 4,368,995.27 2,702,575.29 70,412.11 $14,140,731.57 $14,791,841.41 $15,822,263.49 -i-$651,109.84 +$1,681,531.92 Section 2: Land $5,969,478 . 52 $7,385,239 . 67 $9,622,684 . 82 Improvements 3,152,794.37 1,950,257.13 50,811.43 $9,122,272.89 $9,335,496.80 $9,673,496.25 +213,223.91 +551,223.86 Section 3: Land $12,921,181.26 $15,985,654.35 $20,828,696.21 Improvements 5,457,975.16 3,376,197.02 87,962.46 $18,379,156.42 $19,361,851.37 $20,916,658.67 +982,694.95 +2,537,502.25 Section 4: Land $7,623,248.70 $9,431,228.96 $12,288,530.61 Improvements 4,163,987.86 2,575,761.70 67,108.15 $11,787,236.56 $12,006,990.66 $12,355,638.76 +219.754.10 +568.402.20 Section 5: Land $11,087,941.49 $13,717,631.28 $17,873,548.89 Improvements 5,191,772.13 3,211,529.01 83,672.24 $16,279,713.62 $16,929,160.29 $17,957,221.13 +649,446.67 +1.677,507.51 Section 6: Land $2,610,385.35 $3,229,481.67 $4,207,891.09 Improvements 1,748,392.79 1,081,521.69 28.177.65 $4,358,778.14 $4,311,003.36 $4,236,068.74 — 47,774.78 —122,709.40 Section 7: Land $4,511,848.63 $5,581,908.59 $7,273,013.40 Improvements 3,545,599.52 2,193,238.74 57,142.01 $8,057,448.15 $7,775,147.33 $7,330,155.41 —282,300.82 —727,292.74 Section 8: Land $1,655,346.59 $2,047,939.58 $2,668,386.94 Improvements 1,002,850.59 620,343.82 16,162.26 $2,658,197.18 $2,668,283.40 $2,684,549.20 +10.086.22 +26,352.02 Total Land $56,151,166.84 $69,468,350.23 $90,514,603.36 Improvements 28,632,367.69 17,711,424.40 461.448.31 $84,783,534.53 $87,179,774.63 $90,976,051.67 +2,396.240.10 +6,192,517.14 (a) Not including the "Real Estate of Corporations." 29 The largest increase in taxes would result in Section Three between 14th and 40th streets. The net increase for the real estate of the island under the plan to halve the tax rate on buildings would be $2,936,240.10 and under the full plan, $6,192,517.14. In which of these sections taxes on real estate would increase and in which they would decrease may be ascertained from the data presented in the following table : Assessed Values and Ratios in the Various Assessment Sections of Manhattan {Standard Composite Ratio, 38.34: 61.66) Assessed Values Improvements Land Ratios Taxes Payable Section 1. Section 2. Section 3. Section 4. Section 5. Section 6. Section 7. Section 8. $246,024,150 177,538,200 307,346,110 234,479,900 292,355,850 98,454,410 199,657,600 56,471,900 $550,259,950 336,149,570 727,609,540 429,275,650 624,377,280 146,994,400 254,068,420 93,214,850 30.9:69.1 34.6:65.4 29.7:70.3 35.3:64.7 31.9:68.1 40.1 :59.9 44.0:56.0 37.7:62.3 Increased Decreased Increased It appears from this table that the only sections in Manhattan where real estate as a whole (land and improvements) will pay smaller taxes under the new plan than at present are sections six and seven, comprising a belt of territory from 96th Street to 155th Street entirely across the island. The amounts of the increases and decreases in the levies on real estate in the various assessment sections are shown in the table on page 29. 30 D. EFFECTS IN SELECTED SECTIONS OF THE BOROUGH (1). The "Sky Scraper" Section Increased 65 Decreased 99 164 South of Chambers Street in 1914 there were 164 buildings ten stories or more in height. The ratio of improvement value to land value was obtained for each of these parcels. By comparing with the standard composite ratio for Manhattan (38.34:61.66) it became evident that the adoption of the plan to untax buildings would mean reduced taxes for the great majority. Only a few more than one-third (65 as compared with 164) of these buildings would have their taxes increased. More- over, as is shown by the following table the increased taxes will fall chiefly upon the smaller buildings. Buildings Whose Taxes Will be Increased or Decreased Grouped According TO Height Number of Stories Niimber of Parcels Whose Taxes Wotild be Increased Number of Parcels Whose Taxes Would be Decreased Total 10 17 11 8 24 5 3 6 8 2 3 3 4 5 1 3 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 28 11 5 13 12 14 38 13 6 11 14 2 5 15 3 9 16 6 14 17 1 3 18 4 7 19 1 4 20 2 6 21 2 7 22 1 2 23 3 25 1 4 26 2 30 2 32 3 33 1 40 1 54 1 65 99 164 It will be observed that every building in the district over twenty- five stories in height (ten) would pay smaller taxes. If the tax on buildings were halved, the Woolworth building, with its 54 stories, would receive a decrease in annual taxes of $28,847.64; the 40 story Singer building would receive one of $3,473.40; and the ZZ story City Investment building one of $12,742.36. If the full plan were adopted, the Woolworth building, instead of paying $156,273.92 annually, as at present, would 31 pay but $81,870.56 and the other buildings would receive corresponding decreases not so great. The simple arithmetic average of the assessed values of all ten-story buildings w^as calculated and the ratio between the land value and build- ing value of this "type" was determined. The result showed the average ten-story building in this district stood on a plot whose value was three times that of the building. This relationship (25 :75) is above the stand- ard composite ratio for Manhattan (38.34:61.66), which indicates that the taxes on the typical ten-story building would increase were the pro- posed plan adopted. The same calculations were made for buildings of every height and it was found that this was true also of the average eleven, thirteen and eighteen story building. Average buildings of every other height would be taxed less heavily. In some cases the number of buildings of a particular height is so small as to make the type identical with a single building. This is, of course, unsatisfactory, and leads to a table whose items are of uneven merit. But from the table as it stands, some conclusions may be drawn. As will be seen, there is considerable unevenness in the average values and some unevenness, although con- siderably less, in the ratios. Arithmetic Average of the Assessed Values of Buildings of Various Heights and THE Relationship Between the Value of Land and Building {Standard Composite Ratio, 38.34:61.66) Number Number Assessed Values — Average Parcel of of Value of Value of Stories Buildings Building Land Ratio 10 28 $256,071.43 $758,928.57 25:75 11 13 377,307.69 698,461.54 35:65 12 38 280,263.16 419,207.89 40:60 13 11 341,363.64 562,727.27 38:62 14 5 296,000.00 459,000.00 39:61 15 9 866,666.67 1,313,888.89 40:60 16 14 735,357.14 936,071.43 44:56 17 3 496,666.67 775,000.00 39:61 18 7 617,285.71 1,098,357.14 36:64 19 4 950,000.00 1,206,250.00 44:56 20 6 715,833.34 1,011,666.67 41:59 21 7 1,550,000.00 2,296,428.57 40:60 22 2 1,425,000.00 1,725,000.00 45:55 23 3 1,328,333.33 1,105,000.00 55:45 25 4 997,500.00 1,091,250.00 48:52 26 2 1,737,500.00 1,062,500.00 62:38 30 2 1,775,000.00 2,100,000.00 46:54 32 3 1,841,666.67 2,458,333.33 43:57 33 1 3,700,000.00 2,925,000.00 56:44 40 1 3,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 43:57 54 1 6,000,000.00 2,800,000.00 68:32 This latter fact is brought out more clearly in the accompanying graph which presents the same facts concerning the ratios as are given in the table. It will be seen that the curve representing the relationship of land value to building value is somewhat irregular, particularly in the part 32 dealing with the higher buildings where the number of buildings in each class is smaller. The general direction of the curve is, however, very- clear. If "smoothed" by grouping a number of the types together, it would show a fairly steady progress downward. Stated in general terms, the analysis of the facts shows that the higher the building, RELATIONSHIP OF IMPROVEMENT VALUE TO LAND VALUE IN THE CASE OF AVERAGE BUILDINGS OF VARIOUS HEIGHTS IN NEW YORK CITY lOQ 90 6Q 70 60 50 ' ; , I UILDINC Value > ^-V^*^- .A .Stand^d, Composite .M'Q.... V v \\ / "\ / \ ■ v v I / \ \ on V \ LAND VALUE W 20 25 30 35 KTUMBER OF STORIES 40 45 50 54 the larger the value of the building as compared with the value of the land. The deduction is that the higher the building, the greater will be the reduction in the tax on that parcel. In other words, in the situa- tion actually present, the taller the building the greater the reduction in taxes, not merely absolutely but proportionally. To the extent that the buildings are owned by individuals, the change in the system would amount to the application of the principle of regressivity among the owners of buildings over ten stories in height. In the detailed data which are presented in an appendix* the build- ings are classified according to height, and are then subdivided into groups, Group A, consisting of those parcels whose taxes would be in- creased, and, Group B, of those whose taxes would be decreased. The assessed values falling within each group and class are presented here- with. Assessed Values of Buildings Ten Stories High and Over South of Chambers Street Grouped According to Height and the Effect Upon Taxes Payable Under the Proposed Plan to Untax Buildings GROUP A: Parcels whose Taxes would be Increased Ntunber of Stories Assessed Values Improvements Land Total 10 $4,960,000 $19,565,000 $24,525,000 11 1,955,000 5,940,000 7,895,000 12 3,800,000 9,970,000 13,770,000 13 1,555,000 3,655,000 5,210,000 14 650,000 1,750,000 2,400,000 15 5,065,000 9,200,000 14,265,000 16 3,320,000 6,305,000 9,625,000 17 425,000 1,375,000 1,800,000 18 3,350,000 7,175,000 10,525,000 19 1,100,000 1,850,000 2,950,000 20 1,355,000 2,925,000 4,280,000 21 1,850,000 3,575,000 5,425,000 22 1,100,000 2,900,000 4,000,000 25 550,000 950,000 1,500,000 $31,035,000 $77,135,000 $108,170,000 GROUP B: Parcels whose Taxes would be Decreased Number of Stories Assessed Values I mprovements Land Total 10 $2,210,000 $1,685,000 $3,895,000 11 2,950,000 3,140,000 6,090,000 12 6,850,000 5,959,900 12,809,900 13 2,200,000 2,535,000 4,735,000 14 830,000 545,000 1,375,000 15 2,735,000 2,625,000 5,360,000 16 6,975,000 6,800,000 13,775,000 17 1,065,000 950,000 2,015,000 18 971,500 513,500 1,485,000 19 2,700,000 2,975,000 5,675,000 20 2,940,000 3,145,000 6,085,000 21 9,000,000 12,500,000 21,500,000 22 1,750,000 550,000 2,300,000 23 3,985,000 3,315,000 7,300,000 25 3,440,000 3,415,000 6,855,000 26 3,475,000 2,125,000 5,600,000 30 3,550,000 4,200,000 7,750,000 32 5,525,000 7,375,000 12,900,000 33 3,700,000 2,925,000 6,625,000 40 3,000,000 4,000,000 7,000,000 54 6,000,000 2,800,000 8,800,000 $75,851,500 $74,078,400 $149,929,900 • Infra. pp. 138-144. 34 By extending the tax rates against the total values thus determined the results presented in the accompanying table are obtained. Tax Levies on Skyscrapers (a) South of Chambers Street Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present Rate on Improvements Rate on Improvements System One-Half One One-Hundredth Increase or Increase or Levy Levy Decrease Levy Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements $551,131.94 $340,919.48 — $210,212.46 $8,882.22 — $542,249.72 Land 1,369,794.18 1,694,663.66 -1-324,869.48 2,208,081.94 -1-838,287.76 $1,920,926.12 $2,035,583.14 -|-$114,657.02 $2,216,964.16 -[-$296,038.04 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements $1,347,001.28 $833,228.73 —$513,772.55 $21,708.70 —$1,325,292.58 Land 1,315,513.86 1,627,509.86 -f311,996.00 2,120,583.09 -1-805,069.23 $2,662,515.14 $2,460,738.59 —$201,776.55 $2,142,291.79 —$520,223.35 Total: Improvements $1,898,133.22 $1,174,148.21 —$723,985.01 $30,590.92 —$1,867,542.30 Land 2,685,308.04 3,322,173.52 -f636,865.48 4,328,665.03 -|- 1,643,356. 99 $4,583,441.26 $4,496,321.73 — $87,119.53 $4.359,255.95 —$224, 185.31 (a) All buildings over ten stories are included. The imposition of the plan to halve the rate on buildings would in- crease the taxes of certain of the smaller buildings by $114,657.02 and decrease the taxes of the other parcels $201,776.55. The annual revenue to the city from this class of property would be diminished $87,119.53. If the full plan were adopted, the increases to the smaller buildings would amount to $296,038.04 and the total decreases to $520,223.35, a net reduction in taxes on buildings of this type of $224,185.31. If the entire decrease in the tax on buildings were passed on to the tenants, rents might be expected to decrease in these buildings $723,- 985.01 under the half -rate plan and $1,867,542.30 under the full plan. The other side of the shield is shown when it is stated that the owners of the plots on which these buildings stand would suffer, under the assumed conditions* a diminution in their net annual return from their land of $636,865.48 under the half-rate plan and of $1,643,356.99 under the full plan. Capitalized at five per cent, this would mean a deprecia- tion of $12,737,309.60 or approximately eight and one-half per cent, under the half-rate plan and of $32,867,139.80 or nearly twenty-two per cent, in case the full plan were adopted. (2). Tenement Sections (a). Upper East Side Section Increased 2 Decreased 120 122 * The asssumptions here are that the reduction of the tax on buildings will not release forces which will increase land values and that the change will be made suddenly without an opportunity for it to be discounted beforehand. 35 Between First and Second avenues and between 99th and 103rd streets lies a district almost solidly built up with tenements.* Practi- cally all of the buildings are of five or six stories. Some were built before the new tenement law went into effect in 1901, 43 of the 55 build- ings which are five stories in height and twelve of the 67 six-story build- ings being of this class.f It will be seen that more than half, however, are of the variety commonly known as "new-law" tenements. The effects of removing the tax on buildings in this section are practically all in one direction. On only two of the 122 parcels would taxes be increased. Both of these are old, five-story tenements. Most of the buildings bear a very high proportion to the value of the land on which they stand. The assessed values, grouped according to the effects of the plans, are: Assessed Values of Parcels in the Uptown Tenement House Section Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $14,500 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 2,521,000 Total $2,535,500 $24,000 1,315,500 $38,500 3,836,500 $1,339,500 $3,875,000 Applying the tax rates, the following results are obtained : Taxes Payable by the Owners of Parcels in the Uptown Tenement Section Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings. Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Grodp A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land $257.50 426.20 $159.28 627.28 —$98.22 + 101.08 $4.15 687.03 -$253.35 +260.83 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements Land $683.70 $44,768.93 23,361.18 $686.56 $27,693.18 28,906.67 + $2.86 —$17,075.75 +5,545.49 $691.18 $721.51 37,657.77 + $7.48 —$44,047.42 + 14,296.59 Total: Improvements Land $68,130.11 $45,026.43 23,787.38 $56,599.85 $27,852.46 29,433.95 —$11,530.26 —$17,173.97 +5,646.57 $38,379.28 $725.66 38,334.80 —$29,750.83 —$44,300.77 + 14,547.42 $68,813.81 $57,286.41 —$11,527.40 $39,060.46 —$29,753.35 • This district includes assessment blocks 1671, 1672, 1673 and 1674. t The insurance atlas was used to secure this information and there is a possibility of slight inaccuracies. If the full plan were put into elTect, the total taxes on the 122 tene- ments would be almost cut in half. Instead of paying $68,813.81 they would pay $39,060.46. If the rate on buildings were halved there would be a net reduction in the taxes of $11,527.40, or approximately seventeen per cent. The movement is practically all in one direction, the increase on the two tenements which would pay heavier taxes being almost negli- gible. The average parcel in this section consists of a building worth $20,783 and a plot worth $10,979. The taxes at present on such a parcel amount to $564.04. If the rate on buildings were halved they would be seventeen per cent, less, or $469.51. If the full plan were adopted the decrease would amount to $243.80, or 43%. The amount payable then would be but $320.24. The decrease in the annual taxes on buildings alone in this section under the half-rate plan amounts to the considerable sum of $17,173.97. Under the assumed conditions this is the maximum sum available for lowering rents. Under the same set of assumptions the net revenue to the land owners would be decreased $5,646.57. Capitalized at a rate of five per cent., the decrease in the selling value of the land amounts to $112,931.40, or 8.4 per cent. The reduction in the average plot would be $926— from $10,979 to $10,053.* (b). Rivington Street Section Increased 114 Decreased 59 173 The sample of 173 parcels from the Rivington Street section is selected from one of the most congested districts in the city. It extends from Stanton to Rivington streets and from Eldridge to Suffolk streets. | Most of the parcels are old-law tenements. The average parcel is as- sessed at $36,856. In about two-thirds of the cases (114 as compared with 173) the imposition of the plan to reduce the tax on buildings would mean heavier taxes for these parcels. The assessed values of the parcels, arranged according to the efifect following table are obtained : Assessed Values of Parcels in the Sample from the Rivington Street Section Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $1,020,000 $2,729,500 $3,749,500 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 1,123,500 1,540,000 2,663,500 Total $2,143,500 $4,269,500 $6,413,000 * The detailed statistics for this section are given in an appendix. Cf. infra., pp. 145-147 . t This district consists of assessment blocks, 354, 411 and 416. 37 Applying the tax rates to these values the figures presented in the following table are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels prom the Rivington Street Section Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans TO Untax Buu^dings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase oi Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements $18,113.57 $11,204.70 —$6,908.87 $291.92 —$17,821.65 Land 48,471.55 59,967.39 -|-11,495.84 78,135.21 +29,663.66 $66,585.12 $71,172.09 +$4,586.97 $78,427.13 +$11,842.01 Gkoup B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements $19,951 . 56 $12,341 . 65 —$7.609 . 91 $321 . 55 —$19,630 . 01 Land Total: Improvements. . . . Land 27,347.94 33,833.95 +6,486.01 +44,084.35 +16.736.41 $47,299.50 $46,175.60 —$1,123.90 $44,405.90 —$2,893.60 $38,065.13 $23,546.35 —$14,518.78 $613.47 —$37,451.66 75,819.49 93.801.34 + 17,981.85 122,219.56 +46,400.07 $1 13,884. ( $117,347. + $3,463.07 $122,833.03 +$8,948.41 It will be noticed that the net increase in taxes under the plan to halve the rate on buildings is $3,463.07, or $19.90 per parcel. The maximum available for decreases in rents is $14,518.78, or $83.44 per building. The net annual returns to the owners of the plots on which the tenements stand would be lessened $17,981.85, or $103.34 per plot. Capitalized,* this means a possible decrease in land values of $359,637, or $2,067 per plot. The average plot would thus decrease in selling value from $24,537 to $22,470.t (c). Houston Street Section Increased 70 Decreased 30 100 The one hundred parcels lying in the district between Avenue A and First Avenue, Houston and 3rd streets, are, again, tenements in an ex- tremely congested quarter of the lower east side.| The average parcel is assessed at $32,625 (improvements, $12,443, and land, $20,182). In more than two-thirds of the cases (70 as compared with 100), the adop- tion of the plan to untax buildings would mean greater taxes for these tenements. • Interest rate, five per cent. t For details of this sample, cf. infra, pp. 148-150. % The district consists of assessment blocks 428, 429 and 430. The table which follows gives the assessed values, grouped in the usual fashion : Assessed Values of Parcels in Sample from Rivington Street Section Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $463,800 $1,151,700 $1,615,500 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 780,500 866,500 1,647,000 Total $1,244,300 $2,018,200 $3,262,500 When the tax rates are extended against these values the following results are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in the Sample of Houston Street Section Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Levy Increase or Decrease Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Increase or Decrease Levy $132.74 —$8,103.66 32,968.79 -M2,516.45 Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased; Improvements $8,236.40 $5,094.88 —$3,141.52 Land 20,452.34 25,302.96 +4,850.62 $28,688.74 $30,397.84 +81,709.10 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements $13,860.43 S8.573 .79 —$5,286.64 Land 15.387.65 19,037.09 +3,649.44 Total: Improvements Land $33,101.53 +$4,412.79 $223.38 —$13,637.05 24,804.60 +9,416.95 $29,248.08 $27,610.88 —$1,637.20 $25,027.98 —$4,220.10 $22,096.83 $13,668.67 —$8,428.16 $356 . 12 —$21,740.71 35,839.99 44,340.05 +8,500.06 57.773.39 +21.933.40 $57,936.82 $58,008.72 +$71.90 + $192.69 The net increase in taxes under the half-rate plan would be only $71.90. This is because the decrease upon the thirty buildings whose taxes would be made heavier ($1,637.20) is so great as practically to cancel the increase on the other group ($1,709.10). The reduction in the taxes on buildings, the maximum available for the reduction of rents, would be $8,428.16, or $84.28 per building. The increase in land tax would be $8,500.06, a diminution in the annual rent return to the owner of the average plot of $85.00. Capitalized,* the prospective loss in land value would be $170,001.20, or $1,700.01 per plot.f (*) Interest rate, five per cent. (t) For details of this sample, c/. infra, pp. 151-153. 39 (3). Apartment Sections (a). Elevator Apartment Section Increased Decreased 35 35 A section of Washington Heights lying between Broadway and the Hudson River and between 177th Street and 181st Street was selected as the field for investigating the probable effects of the plan upon high- class elevator apartment property.* In this district there are thirty-five six-story elevator apartment buildings, all of which have been built fairly recently. The apartments, which are of various sizes, rent for approximately ten dollars per room per month. If the plan to untax the buildings were adopted, the taxes on every one of these pieces of property would be materially reduced. Not one has a high enough percentage of land value to bring the parcel ratio near the standard composite ratio. The assessed valuation of the land on which these apartments stand is $2,213,000. The buildings are assessed for $5,165,000. Applying the rates, the amounts given in the following table are obtained. They represent the total taxes payable under the present system and under the proposed plans. Taxes Payable by Owners of Elevator Apartments in Washington Heights Section Improvements Land Total Present system— Levy $91,722. 14 $39,299. 34 $131,021. 48 Rate on improvements one-half— Levy .. 56,737.55 48,619.83 105,357.38 Increase or decrease —34,984.59 -|-9,320.49 —25,664.10 Rate on improvements one one-hundredth Levy 1,478. 22 63,349. 78 64,828. 00 Increase or decrease —90,243. 92 -|-24,050. 44 —66,193. 48 The decreases here would be very great. If the full plan were adopted the taxes on these parcels would be reduced by more than one- half. If the rate on buildings were halved it would mean a decrease of twenty per cent. The average apartment in this sample section is assessed at $147,571 and the average value of the plot at $63,229. The taxes at present on this parcel amount to $3,743.47. If the rate on buildings were halved, the parcel would be , charged with $3,010.21 and if the full plan were adopted, with only $1,852.24. The decrease in the first case would be $733.26 and in the second, $1,891.23. If the rate on buildings were halved, there would be a reduction of $34,984.59 in the tax on buildings, which under certain conditions might be available for the reduction of rents. This means a thousand dollars The district consists of assessment blocks 2176 and 2177. 40 ($999.84) per apartment per year. At the same time the owners of the plots would suffer a reduction in their income from the land of $9,320.49. Assuming an interest rate of five per cent, and capitalizing this amount, $186,409.80 is obtained as representing the probable depreciation in the selling value of the plots. If this be true the average plot would decrease $5,325.97 in value— from $63,229 to $57,903. This decrease amounts to 8.4 per cent.* (b). "Walk-up" Apartment Section Increased Decreased 44 44 The district bounded by Broadway, 178th Street, Amsterdam Ave- nue and 174th Street contains forty-four five-story "walk-up" apartment buildings.f An examination of the ratios of buildings and land values shows that here, as in the case of the elevator apartments, reductions would be made in the taxes of every apartment house. The proportion of building value to total value is not as great as is the case in the typical elevator apartment and the advantages which would accrue if buildings were untaxed would therefore not be so great either absolutely or pro- portionally. The total assessed value of the 44 buildings is $1,632,000 and of the plots on which they stand, $1,034,000. The taxes paid at present by these parcels, and the changes which would result were the proposed plans adopted are shown in the following statement : Taxes Payable by Owners of "Walk-up" Apartments in Washington Heights Section Improvements Land Total Present system— Levy $28,981 . 71 $18,362. 19 $47,343. 90 Rate on improvements one-half— Levy .. . 17,927.52 22,717.08 40,644.60 Increase or decrease —11,054. 19 -f4,354. 89 —6,699. 30 Rate on improvements one one-hundredth Levy 467. 08 29,599. 49 30,066. 57 Increase or decrease —28,514. 63 -1-11,237. 30 —17,277. 33 The adoption of the full plan would mean that taxes on these apart- ments would be reduced approximately one-third. Making the rate on buildings one-half the rate on land would mean a reduction of nearly seven thousand dollars or approximately fourteen per cent. The average "walk-up" apartment building in this section is assessed at $37,091, and it stands on a plot assessed at $23,500. Taxes at present * Detailed information in regard to this section may be found in an appendix. Cf. infra, p. 153. t This territory consists of assessment blocks 2131, 2132 and 2133. 41 on such a parcel are $1,076. With the rate on buildings halved, they would be $923.74, a reduction of $152.26. The adoption of the full plan would increase the reduction to $392.67. The amount payable would then be only $683.33. It will be noticed that in halving the rate on improvements the taxes on the structures would be decreased $11,054.19 and this represents the amount available under certain circumstances for reductions in rents. At the same time the net annual return to the owners of the land on which the apartments are built would be diminished $4,354.89. With the interest rate at five per cent, the depreciation in the selling value would be $87,097.80. The average parcel might be expected under the assumptions to decrease $1,979.50 from $23,500 to $21,521.* (4). Sections of Single Family Houses (a). Riverside Drive Section Increased 9 Decreased 42 51 The section of Riverside Drive included in the half-mile between 72nd and 82nd streets is one of the choicest residential districts in the city. With the exception of one apartment house, the entire stretch is used for single family dwellings. Among them is one of the show places of the city, the magnificent residence of Charles M. Schwab. In all there are fifty-one houses on this section of the drive. The adoption of the proposed plan would reduce the taxes on all except nine parcels. Among the nine is the Schwab property, which it will be recalled, stands in a park approximately two hundred by four hundred feet in size. Even when this large amount of land is used the increase in taxes amounts only to $17.58, under the plan to halve the rate on buildings and to $54.26, under the plan to reduce the rate on buildings to one per cent, of that on land. In other words, the Schwab property almost coincides with the hypothetical type of the standard composite ratio. Parcels, there- fore, whose taxes would be increased contain a larger share of land value than is the case with the Schwab property. In order to determine the magnitude of the readjustments which would be caused by the adoption of the proposed plans, the assessed values of the property have been separated into two groups, Group A consisting of the parcels whose taxes would be increased, and Group B of those whose taxes would be decreased. The assessed values thus arranged are as follows: The details for this section are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, p. 154. 42 Assessed Values of Real Estate in Riverside Drive Section Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $769,000 Group B: $1,250,000 $2,019,000 Parcels whose taxes would be decreased . . 1,061,000 1,202,500 2,263,500 Total . . $1,830,000 $2,452,500 $4,282,500 Applying the tax rates the following results are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners in Riverside Drive Section Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would $35,854.21 40,196.14 $35,910.09 38,074.13 + $55.88 —2,122.01 $36,002.84 34,726.66 -|-$148.62 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased —5,469.48 Total $76,050.35 $73,984.22 —$2,066.13 $70,729.50 —$5,320.86 To halve the tax rate on buildings would increase the taxes of a few owners the shght amount of $55.88 while it would decrease the taxes of other owners by $2,122.01, the net reduction in taxes amounting- to $2,066.13 annually. The adoption of the full plan would involve a decrease in the contribution from this section of $5,320.86. In the table which follows the parcels are classified according to value and according to the effects of the proposed plans : Parcels in the Riverside Drive Section Classified According to Value and the Effect Upon Them of the Plans to Untax Buildings Number of Parcels Value of Parcels Increased Decreased Less than $40,000.. $40,000 to $49,999 . $50,000 to $59,999 . $60,000 to $69,999 . $70,000 to $79,999 . Over $80,000 42 It will be noticed that the median in the case of the parcels whose taxes would be increased is decidedly lower than that among the parcels 43 [^u/h /nulic. u^Hin\ c /'"/u/i ■' 5 y^^'^yyc whose taxes would be decreased.* That is, the parcels in this section whose taxes would be raised are in general not the more expensive but rather the less expensive ones. This is a phenomenon which is found to recur often in the Manhattan samples. f (b). Fifth Avenue Section Increased 95 Decreased 32 127 The eflfects of the partial exemption of improvements in the Fifth Avenue district would be almost exactly the reverse of the effects in the Riverside Drive section just examined. Curiously enough along Fifth Avenue most of the single family residences would pay greater, not smaller, taxes, as was the case along the drive. In 1914 there were 127 parcels of this character on the Avenue between 60th and 93rd Streets, facing the park. This is probably the choicest residential section in the city. Here are the town houses of Carnegie, ex-Senator Clark, Astor and J. B. Duke. Ninety-five of the 146 parcels would be charged with higher taxes, if the plan to untax buildings were adopted. Thirty-two would pay smaller taxes. The explanation of this situation is not difficult to discover. The building value in the great majority of cases is a much smaller part of the total value of the parcel than is the case in the standard composite ratio for Manhattan (38.34:61.66) because of the limitation on the type of building which may be placed upon this land. The enormous land values in this section are due to its desirability as sites for the private residences of the very wealthy. Great emphasis is placed upon being located in this particular section. To place an improvement on the land which would bear the ordinary relationship to the value of the land is a difficult task, if the improvement is to be a single-family residence and not a tall building of some sort. Only by covering the entire plot and by using the most expensive building materials can enough building value be secured to bring it above the typical proportion. The most expensive house on Fifth Avenue is that of ex-Senator Clark. It was assessed in 1914 at three millions. The land was assessed at one million. This is an extreme case, for more building value has been put upon this plot than upon any plot of like value in the section. The taxes on this parcel would be reduced $16,108.50, if the rate on buildings were halved. If the rate were reduced to one one-hundredth of the rate on land, the Clark property would pay only $29,484.80 in annual taxes. • The presence of one parcel, the Schwab property, with an assessed value many times that of any other parcel, unfits the material for the use of the simple arithmetic average in this case. tThe detailed data for the section is given in an appendix. Cf. infra, p. 155. 44 As the parcel now pays $71,033.60 this would mean a reduction of $41,- 548.80, more than one-half. Other parcels on which taxes would be reduced include the resi- dences of J. B. Duke and E. H. Gary. On the other hand the taxes would be increased considerably on several parcels. The Carnegie property shows the most important changes in this direction. The taxes would increase $4,679.57 under the plan to halve the rate on buildings, and $12,077.83 under the plan to elim- inate all except one per cent. The taxes at present on this parcel are $41,732.24. The average value of the parcels whose taxes would be increased is $436,895 and that of those whose taxes would be decreased is $469,344. The figures are very close but it will be noted that the average is a little higher in the case of the parcels whose taxes would be decreased. The table which follows classifies the parcels according to value and accord- ing to the effects of the proposed plans. Classification of Parcels in the Fifth Avenue Section According to Value and According to the Effects of the Adoption of the Plan to Untax Buildings Value of Parcel $100,000 to $199,999 . $200,000 to $299,999 . $300,000 to $399,999. $400,000 to $499,999. $500,000 to $599,999. $600,000 to $699,999 . $700,000 to $799,999. $800,000 to $899,999. More than $900,000. . Number of Parcels Increased Decreased 13 3 34 12 10 9 13 4 9 1 3 1 4 2 7 2 95 32 From these figures it is evident that in this section the median, both for the parcels whose taxes will be increased and those whose taxes will be decreased is at about the same value. The assessed values of the real estate in the Fifth Avenue section, grouped according to the effects of the proposed change, are as follows : Assessed Values of Parcels in Fifth Avenue Section Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased... $10,088,000 $31,417,000 $41,505,000 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased. . . 7,873,000 7,146,000 15,019,000 Total $17,961,000 $38,563,000 $56,524,000 45 Applying the tax rates to these values the following resiilts are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners in The Fifth Avenue Section Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present Rate on Improvements Rate on Improvements System One-Half One One-Hundredth Increase or Increase or Levy Levy Decrease Levy Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $737,062.39 $801,051.31 -t-$63,988.92 $902,236.51 -f$165,174.12 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 266, 713.41 243,483.24 —23,230.17 206,816.07 —59,897.34 Total $1,003,775.80 $1,044,534.55 -|-$40,758.75 $1,109,052.58 +$105,276.78 It appears that if the rate on buildings were halved, the taxes on certain parcels would increase $63,988.92, while those on other parcels would decrease $23,230.17, making the net increase for the district $40,- 758.75. In case the full plan were adopted the net increase would be $105,276.76.* (c). Section of Side Streets East of Fifth Avenue Increased 471 Decreased 113 584 Along the side streets east of Fifth Avenue between 60th and 93rd streets are located a large number of single-family dwellings of a very high type. This is the region where a person who desires a residence in Manhattan which would cost, for land and house, approximately one hundred thousand dollars is likely to locate. Although most of the houses are far from new, the region as a whole cannot be said to be far advanced in the transition stage toward another use, such as for busi- ness or apartment purposes. This statement does not hold true for the margin along Madison Avenue. Almost all of the streets in the district, however, are considered proper sites for the construction of new resi- dences. In this selected section there were at the time of assessment in 1914, 584 parcels, improved by one-family houses. An examination of the relative value of building to land in these parcels reveals the fact that approximately four-fifths of the parcels (471) would be charged with heavier taxes under the plan to untax buildings. * The detailed information for the Fifth Avenue section is given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 156-158. 46 The following table classifies the parcels by streets: Number of Parcels (a) in the Side Streets Off Fifth Avenue Whose Taxes Would Be Increased and Decreased in Consequence of the Adoption of the Proposal to Untax Buildings Increased Decreased 62d 63d 64th 65th 66th 67th 68th 69th 70th 71st 72d 73d 74th 75th 76th 77th 78th 79th 80th 81st 82d 83d 84th 85th 86th 87th 88th 89th 90th 91st 92d 93d 7 16 3 17 5 18 3 19 3 16 4 17 2 18 4 11 2 14 1 11 6 9 5 16 1 16 6 27 20 1 21 6 21 1 15 3 13 9 17 6 17 6 7 13 18 3 12 4 11 9 4 2 1 3 5 2 2 2 26 27 471 113 (a) Single-family dwellings only. The results are on the whole fairly regular. The parcels whose taxes would be decreased are scattered evenly through the section. The assessment rolls show that in the few blocks where the number of de- creases is large, such as 82nd, 87th, 88th, 89th and 90th streets, apartment houses are also present. These are for the most part old buildings. An interesting point becomes evident when the parcels are grouped according to their value. By referring to the table, it will be seen that, as the value of the properties increases, there is a regular progression in the percentage of parcels whose taxes would be decreased. 47 Increases and Decreases in Taxes Among the Single-Family Dwellings in the Section of Side Streets East of Fifth Avenue Grouped According to THE Value of Properties Value of Parcels Number of Parcels Percentage Increased Decreased Increased Decreased Less than $50,000 65 $50,000 to $99,999 246 $100,000 to $149,999 109 $150,000 to $199,999 31 More than $200,000 20 100 94 74 53 38 In other words the situation here is similar to that in the sky-scraper section: the more expensive the parcel the larger the proportion of building value. The two graphs which follow may aid in making this plan: PARCELS WHOSE TAXES WOULD BE INCREASED AND DECREASED AMONG THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF FIFTH AVENUE GROUPED ACCORDING TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY lso,ooo i 99,999 ^100,000 $150,000 I TO ^ TO ^149,999 ,J 139.999 OVER i 200,000 VALUE OF PARCELS. 48 PERCENTAGES OF PARCELS WHOSE TAXES WOULD BE INCREASED AND DECREASED AMONG THE SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF FIFTH AVENUE, GROUPED ACCORDING TO THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY INCREASED DECREASED 100 $5(^000 $100,000 $150,000 OVER TO TO TO TO i49t999 $99,999 $149,999 5199.993 $ZOO,000 VALUE OF PARCELS. The first shows the number of parcels. It will be noted that by far the greater number of the parcels on which the taxes will be increased fall in the lower two classes, viz., below $100,000, whereas almost all of the parcels whose taxes will be increased are assessed for more than that sum. In order to determine amounts involved in the readjustments in taxes among the owners in this section the assessed values of the parcels whose taxes would be increased were separated from those of the par- cels whose taxes would be decreased with the following results : Assessed Values of Parcels in the Section of Side Streets East of Fifth Avenue Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased. Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased. $9,430,500 $34,575,000 $44,005,500 .902,500 10,067,500 18,970,000 Total $18,333,000 $44,642,500 $62,975,500 49 It will be noticed that these figures confirm the point already made that on the whole the decreases are among the more valuable parcels. Whereas the number of parcels whose taxes would be decreased consti- tute but one-fifth of the total number, they make nearly one-third of the total value. Extending the rates against these values, the taxes payable by the two groups under the proposed plans are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners in Section of Side Streets East of Fifth Avenue Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present Rate on Improvements Rate on Improvements System One-Half One One-Hundredth Increase or Increase or Levy Levy Decrease Levy Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $781,467.27 $863,210.25 +$81,742.98 $992,449.87 -}- $21 0,982. 60 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 336,876.85 318,977.94 —17,898.91 290,742.18 ^6,134.67 Total $1,118,344.12 $1,182,188.19 +$63,844.07 $1,283,192.05 +$164,847.93 The foregoing table indicates that the houses in this section as a group would pay approximately six per cent, greater taxes if the rate on buildings were halved and approximately fifteen per cent, higher taxes if the rate on improvements were made one one-hundredth of that on land. The decreases in the taxes upon certain parcels amount in both cases to roughly one-fifth of the increases upon certain other parcels. The average of the assessed values of the parcels in this section is $107,835 (land $76,443 and building $31,392). The taxes at present on a parcel of this type are $1,914.98. If the rate on buildings were halved the taxes would be $2,024.30, or $109.32 greater than before. If the full plan were adopted the taxes would be increased $282.28 (to $2,- 197.26.)* (d). Section of Side Streets off Riverside Drive 1914 Increased 71 Decreased 150 221 1915 Increased 159 Decreased 58 217 The side streets off Riverside Drive between 82nd and 88th streets, and between the drive and West End Avenue form a sample of a 'The detailed data for this section will be found in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 159-168. 50 district which until fairly recently has been a stronghold of the single family dwelling of high type. The parcels in this region are assessed for the most part at figures between twenty and thirty thousand dollars. Lately apartments have begun to crowd rapidly into the district until in 1915 there were not less than forty-three buildings of this type on these streets.* Such a movement has the effect of detracting from the desirability of the region as sites for private residences and as a con- sequence most of the owners are in full retreat, the region being thickly strewn with signs advertising the property for sale. The assessment data for the two years, 1914 and 1915, when com- pared, show very plainly the nature of the change which is taking place. In 1914 the ratio of building to land value in the various plots was such that, had the plan to untax buildings been adopted then, approximately two-thirds of the parcels would have received lower taxes. But in 1915, conditions had so changed, land values having increased as compared with building values, that the situation is exactly reversed. If the plan had been imposed in 1915, two-thirds of the parcels would have paid greater instead of lower taxes. The assessed values for the two years, grouped in the usual manner, are : Assessed Values of Parcels in the Sample from Section of Side Streets off Riverside Drive (a) Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: 1914 1915 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: 1914 1915 Total, 1914. Total, 1915. $578,800 1,106,300 $1,350,000 3,250,700 $1,928,800 4,357.000 2,289,500 799,200 2,419,500 107,090 4,709,000 906,290 $2,868,300 1,905,500 $3,769,500 3,357,790 $6,637,800 5,263,290 (a) The number of parcels is not the same in the two years, several houses having been torn down during the intervening period, and therefore the amounts are not strictly comparable. Applying the tax rates, the results given in the table on page 52 are obtained. It will be noted that under the half-tax plan and on the basis of the 1914 valuations, the total net taxes in this section would decrease slightly ($3,552.13), whereas on the basis of the 1915 valuation the net * This number includes the buildings situated on the corners even when facing on the drive or West End Avenue. 51 Q u Q ^_, > O v5- 1 (5 H b 3 > § m -o [#) « UJ W ^ 1 < CO o 12 02 ^ o ^ M O 05 to si:? t^ IN IN 00 CO t^ s if 1 1 i ^ R t^ in 00 lo IN O IN O CO o O 05 lO o IN ■^ a> o 00 ■* lO CD t. 13 ^ : ^ o a 1 1 1 s - 2 1 —I in t~ ^ o CO t~ o m ^ SI' V 0) si S3 0! o 52 taxes would be increased somewhat, ($1,235.29). According to the 1914 figures the increase in the land tax would amount to $15,876.01. Capital- ized,* this amounts to $317,520.20, which represents the probable de- preciation in land values due to the adoption of the plan.f (e). Section of Side Streets West of Central Park 1914 Increased 165 Decreased 129 294 1915 Increased 283 Decreased 11 294 This sample consists of 294 single-family houses situated between Central Park West and Columbus Avenue, 90th and 95th streets. Here, as in the side streets east of Riverside Drive, apartments are pushing in with the result that land values are rising while building values of the single-family houses are falling. In 1914, when the average parcel in the sample was assessed at $20,861, the imposition of the plan to untax buildings would have increased the taxes of 165 parcels and decreased those of 129 parcels. The parcels whose taxes would be increased aver- age 18,685 in value, while those whose taxes would be decreased average $23,628, another example of the tendency often noted in the Manhattan sections. So rapidly are changes taking place in the district, however, that by 1915 the number of parcels whose taxes would be increased had swollen from 165 to 283, while those in the other group had shrunk from 129 to eleven. By referring to the table of assessed values for 1914 which follows, it will be seen that, despite the disparity in numbers between the two groups, the assessed values are approximately the same. Assessed Values of Parcels in Sample from Section of Side Streets West of Central Park Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased. Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased . . . $950,500 . . 1,322,500 $2,133,500 1,726,500 $3,084,000 3,049,000 Total . . $2,273,000 $3,860,000 $6,133,000 * Interest rate, five per cent. t The details for this section are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 169-172. Applying the tax rates to the assessed values the results given in the following table are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in the Sample from Section of Side Streets West of Central Park Under the Present System, and Under THE Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Levy Increase or Decrease Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Increase or Decrease Levy Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements $16,879.36 $10,441.24 —$6,438.12 $273.03 —$16,606.33 Land 37,887.55 46,873.21 -1-8,985.66 61,074.00 -|-23,186.45 $54,766.91 $57,314.45 +$2,547.54 $61,347.03 +$6,580.12 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements $23,485.48 $14,527.66 —$8,957.82 $378.50 —$23,106.98 Land 30,659.88 37,931.38 +7,271.50 49,423.13 +18,763.25 $54,145.36 $52,459.04 —$1,686.32 $49,801.63 —$4,343.73 Total: Improvements $40,364.84 $24,968.90 —$15,395.94 $651.53 —$39,713.31 Land 68,547.43 84,804.59 +16,257.16 110,497.13 +41,949.70 $108,912.27 $109,773.49 + $861.22 $111,148.66 +$2,236.39 The increase in the taxes upon the larger number of the parcels is almost balanced by the decreases on the smaller number of more val- uable parcels. Thus if the rate on buildings were halved the taxes on one group of parcels would be increased $2,547,54, while those upon an- other group would be decreased $1,686.32.* (f). Section of Side Streets East of Lexington Avenue Increased 107 Decreased 47 154 This section consists of 154 houses located between Lexington and Third avenues on the following streets : 70th, 71st, 72nd, 73rd, 74th, 78th and 79th. In some of the streets in this section there is considerable grouping of ownership, indicating the change which is going on from the use of the land for residences to its use for apartment purposes. Already a number of apartments have been built and some of the old residences converted into apartments, but all these have been eliminated from the sample. Certainly a few and probably a considerable number of the houses in the sample are used as rooming and boarding houses. The details of this sample are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 173-177. 54 The average parcel in the section is assessed at $25,305. In the case of 107 of the 154 parcels the tax would increase under the proposed plans to untax buildings. The average value of these buildings is $20,- 178, while that of the 47 parcels whose taxes would be decreased is $36,979. This shows that the same situation is here present as that which was found in so many other Manhattan sections, vis., that the more valuable parcels in the group would receive decreases which are larger both absolutely and proportionally as compared with the less ex- pensive parcels. The assessed values, arranged in the usual fashion, are as follows : Assessed Values of Parcels in Section of Selected Side Streets East of Lexington Avenue Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes wotild be increased. . . $578,500 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased. . . 872,000 $1,570,000 866,000 $2,148,500 1,738,000 Total $1,450,500 $2,436,000 $3,886,500 The larger value per parcel among the houses in Class B once more becomes apparent. Extending the tax rates against the values in the table given above, the following results are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Section of Selected Side Streets East OF Lexington Avenue Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present Rate on Improvements Rate on Improvements System One-Half One One-Hundredth Increase or Increase or Levy Levy Decrease Levy Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes woiild be increased: Improvements $10,273.23 $6,354.82 —$3,918.41 $165.57 —$10,107.66 Land 27,880.69 34,493.06 +6,612.37 44,943.13 +17,062.44 $38,153.92 $40,847.88 + $2,693.96 $45,108.70 + $6,954.78 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements $15,485.32 $9,578.92 —$5,906.40 $249.57 —$15,235.75 Land 15,378.77 19,026.11 +3,647.34 24,790.29 +9,411.52 $30,864.09 $28,605.03 —$2,259.06 $25,039.86 —$5,824.23 Total: Improvements $25,758.55 $15,933.74 —$9,824.81 $415.14 —$25,343.41 Land 43,259.46 53,519.17 +10,259.71 69,733.42 +26,473.96 $69,018.01 $69,452.91 + $434.90 $70,148.56 +$1,130.55 55 It will be noted that the net change would be very slight, there being only an increase of $434.90 under the plan to halve the rate on buildings. This amounts to $2.82 per parcel. The decreases on the fewer more expensive parcels (Group B) almost counterbalances the increases on the many less expensive parcels (Group A).* (g). Section in Washington Square District Increased 126 Decreased 126 This section consists of 126 single family dwellings situated on 9th, 10th and 11th streets between Fifth and Sixth avenues. Most of the houses are old and not less than fifteen of the number are used as room- ing houses. The assessed value of the average parcel is $25,218. Every parcel of the 126 would pay higher taxes if the plan to untax buildings were adopted. The assessed values for the group of parcels are improvements $518,300, land $2,660,800 and total $3,179,100. Applying the tax rates, the figures presented in the following table are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in the Sample from the Washington Square District, Under the Present System, and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Levy Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Increase or Decrease Levy Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land $9,204.18 47,251.55 $5,693.53 58,458.04 —$3,510.65 -1-11,206.49 $148.34 76,168.59 —$9,055.84 +28,917.04 $56,455.73 $64,151.67 +$7,695.84 $76,316.93 +$19,861.20 It will be seen that, under the plan to halve the tax rate, there would be a net increase in taxes on these parcels of $7,695.84 or $61.08 per parcel. There would be a decrease in the net annual return to the owners of the land of $11,206,49 or $88.94 per lot. Capitalized,-j- this sum amounts to $1,778.80 which represents the probable decrease in the selling value of the average plot, which is now assessed at $21,1 17.| *The details for the sample are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 178-180. •J- Interest rate, five per cent. J The details of this sample are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 181-182. 56 (h). Mount Morris Park Section Increased 204 Decreased 191 395 The sing-le-family dwellings in the somewhat irregular district bounded roughly by 118th Street, Seventh Avenue, 124th Street and Mount Morris Avenue, are of an unpretentious type. Practically all of the parcels are assessed at sums between ten and thirty thousand dollars. That the property in this region is about to be diverted to a different use is evident from the following statement of Tax Commissioner Purdy: "An inspection of the names of the owners shows that the gathering of plottage is going on in this section, and in view of the building of tenement houses immediately south of Mount Morris Park it seems clear that tenement houses will at no distant day in- trude into these residential blocks. With the building of the first tenement house on a block, the value of the remaining houses de- clines greatly." The one-family houses situated on twenty-two blocks front were selected for analysis. In all there were 395 residences. It was found that in almost all of these parcels the ratio of building to land value was very close to the standard composite ratio for Manhattan. In approximately one-half of the cases the ratio was above the standard and in the other cases it was below. The table which follows shows the number of par- cels whose taxes would be increased and decreased, grouped by streets : Number of Parcels (a) in the Selected Blocks of the Mount Morris Park Section Whose Taxes Would Increase and Decrease in Consequence of the Adoption of the Proposal to Untax Buildings Increased Decreased 118th Street, north side, Seventh to Lenox Avenues 24 119th Street, Seventh to Lenox Avenues ^j ^^ 120th Street, Seventh to Lenox Avenues ^1 ^^ 121st Street, Seventh to Lenox Avenues 1^ *° 122d Street, Seventh to Lenox Avenues ^7 ^o 123d Street, south side, Seventh to Lenox Avenues 34 U 120th Street, north side, Lenox to Mt. Morris Avenues 12 121st Street, Lenox to Mt. Morris Avenues 6 lb 122d Street, Lenox to Mt. Morris Avenues 14 ^ 123d Street, Lenox to Mt. Morris Avenues 22 ^ 124th Street, south side, Lenox to Mt. Morris Avenues 5 U Mt. Morris Avenue, 120th to 121st Streets 6 4 Mt. Morris Avenue, 121st to 122d Streets 4 U Mt. Morris Avenue, 122d to 123d Streets 5 U Mt. Morris Avenue, 123d to 124th Streets 3 U 204 191 (a) Single-family dwellings only. Here, it will be seen, is considerable irregularity. In general the bulk of the decreases would occur in the southern portion of the section, viz., south of 120th Street, while most of the increases would occur north 57 of that street. The lots in this section are very narrow, most of them being eighteen to twenty feet in width. A considerable number have even less frontage than this. Interesting results are secured when the parcels are grouped accord- ing to value. As is shown by the accompanying table and graphs the same condition here prevails as in the side streets east of Fifth Avenue. It is among the parcels of lower value that the bulk of the increases occur. The higher the value of the property, the greater is the decrease in taxes both absolutely and proportionally. Increases and Decreases in Taxes Among the Single-Family Dwellings in the Mount Morris Park Section Grouped According to Value Number of Parcels Percentage Increased Decreased Increased Decreased $5,000 to $9,999 15 9 100 $10,000 to $14,999 64 4 94 6 $15,000 to $19,999 100 113 47 53 Over $20,000. 25 74 25 75 204 191 200 150 ° 100 (C UJ (D z 5 50 DECREASES INCREASES $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 OVER ^'^ "^^ "^^ $20,000 $9,999 $14999 $t9,999 'rNCR EASED DECREASED $5000 $)0000 $15000 Qygf^ TO TO TO $10000 i9999 $14999 $19993 VALUE OF PARCELS VALUE OF PARCEILS 58 The assessed values of the parcels whose taxes would be increased or decreased may be grouped as follows : Assessed Values of Single-Family Dwellings in Mount Morris Park Section Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased. ... $1,015,200 $2,237,200 $3,252,400 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased.... 1,579,300 1,963,900 3,543,200 Total $2,594,500 $4,201,100 $6,795,600 Applying the tax rates the following results are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Single-Family Dwellings in the Mount Morris Park Section Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would $57,757,42 62,921.56 $60,303.48 60,495.69 + $2,546.06 —2,425.87 $64,333.08 56,670.99 + $6,575.66 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would —6,250.57 Total $120,678.98 $120,799.17 + $120.19 $121,004.07 + $325.09 It will be seen that the net change in this district is almost negli- gible. If the full plan were put in efifect the parcels in this district would yield only $325.09 more in taxes. Certain parcels would pay $6,575.66 more in taxes, while the other group would pay $6,250.57 less, the two figures almost offsetting each other. The average house in this group is assessed at $6,568 and the land on which it stands at $10,636. The taxes on this property under the present system are $305.52. So near are the values in this parcel to the standard composite ratio for Manhattan that the adoption of the pro- posed changes would make almost no difference in the taxes charged against the parcel. Even if the full plan were put into operation the annual tax bill would increase only sixty-three cents (to $306.26).* E. SUMMARY It appears that in general the tax burden of Manhattan would be increased by the adoption of the proposed plan to untax buildings. The tax rate on land under the partial reduction plan would increase to 2.20 ■ The full data for this section is given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 183- and under the full plan to 2.86. Most of the sky-scrapers below Cham- bers Street would receive a decrease in taxes. Downtown tenements would pay higher and uptown tenements would pay lower taxes. Up- town apartment houses of good type, both elevator and walk-up types, would receive substantial reductions. Upon single-family houses the plan would have a variety of efifects. On Fifth Avenue the typical house would pay higher taxes. On Riverside Drive it would pay lower taxes. In the case of the more modest houses in the side streets the typical parcel in almost every section would pay heavier taxes as a result of the adoption of the plan. IV. EFFECTS IN THE BRONX UNDER CERTAIN ASSUMED CONDITIONS * It has already been shown that in the redistribution of the general city taxes among the boroughs,t consequent to the adoption of the plan to untax buildings, the taxes for the Borough of the Bronx would be slightly reduced. It remains to discuss the effects within the borough. A. TAX RATES The effects upon the tax rates are shown in detail by the following graph :f THE BRONX RATES UPON THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF PROPERTY UNDER THE PRES- ENT SYSTEM AND UNDER THE PROPOSED PLANS TO UNTAX BUILDINGS 3.0% so D r < -1 00 N o z < a? (C r- w 1- z u Z 111 > o a. I < z s K bJ 0. O z < -1 s < > a. Mi 0. o a: a. i I v> tc lU 0. 'f>/o § ?! z UJ % > a. 2 00 o o Z u 2 — 2 1 |Q5% PRESENT RATE ON RATE ON S-YSTCM IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS ONE HALF RATE OM LAND ONE-MUNOREOtN RATE ON LAND * The most important condition assumed is that the assessed values will not be disturbed. Cf. supra, p. 18. ■j- Cf. supra, pp. 22-23. J The statistics upon which this graph is based are presented in the table on p. 21. 61 Under the assumptions, the increase in the rate on land would be to 2.18 if half the tax on buildings were removed and to 2.85 if the full plan were adopted. B. DISTRIBUTION OF THE BURDEN AMONG THE ELEMENTS IN THE TAX BASE How the present burden carried by the three elements in the tax base would be affected by the proposed changes is set forth in the accom- panying graph. THE BRONX DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES AMONG THE ELEMENTS OF THE TAX BASE UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM AND UNDER THE PROPOSED PLANS TO UNTAX BUILDINGS PRESENT SYSTEM ill LAND 6.3 MILLIONS IMPROVEMENTS 4.83 MILLIONS RATE ON IMPROVEMENTS, ONE -HALF RATE ON LAND i LAND 7.8 MILLIONS IMPROVEMENTS 2.9 MILLIONS RATE ON IMPROVEMENTS, ONE- ONE -HUNDRETDTH RATE ON LAND LAND \0Z MILLIONS IMPROVEMENTS '^ $78,000 C. EFFECTS IN THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT SECTIONS OF THE BOROUGH The Borough of the Bronx is divided into ten assessment sections, whose boundaries are indicated in the map on page 63. «;. 62 B0R0U6W OF THE BRONX Tax Levies Upon the Real Estate (a) in tbe Various Assessment Sections of the Borough of The Bronx Under the Present System, and Under THE Proposed Plan to Untax Buildings Levies Increases and Decreases Rate Rate on Rate Rate on Present on Improvements on Improvements System Improvements One One- Improvements One One- One-Half Hundredth One-Half Hundredth Section 9: Land $1,243,152.85 $1,541,460.99 $2,015,700.23 Improvements 1,104,663.24 684,866.51 17,906.65 $2,347,816.09 $2,226,327.50 $2,033,606.88 —$121,488.59 —$314,209.21 Section 10: Land $1,062,546.00 $1,317,515.55 $1,722,856.71 Improvements 1,267,855.75 786,042.21 20,552.00 $2,330,401.75 $2,103,557.76 $1,743,408.71 —226,843.99 —586,993.04 Section 11: Land $1,627,077.45 $2,017,512.50 $2,638,211.70 Improvements 1,413,438.62 876,300.34 22,911.91 $3,040,516.07 $2,893,812.84 $2,661,123.61 —146,703.23 —379,392.46 Section 12: Land $436,732.53 $541,531.28 $708,136.46 Improvements 230,002.97 142,596.70 3,728.36 $666,735.50 $684,127.98 $711,864.82 -)-17,392.48 +45,129.32 Section 13: Land $270,678.64 $335,630.95 $438,889.72 Improvements 55,350.29 34,315.94 897.23 $326,028.93 $369,946.89 $439,786.95 -t-43,917.96 +113,758.02 Section 14: Land $225,943.00 $280,160.50 $366,353.47 Improvements 74,821 . 33 46,387 .55 1 ,212 . 86 $300,764.33 $326,548.05 $367,566.33 +25,783.72 +66,802.00 Section 15: Land $347,724.00 $431,164.18 $563,814.30 Improvements 142,989.23 88,650.12 2,317.86 $490,713.23 $519,814.30 $566,132.16 +29,101.07 +75,418.93 Section 16: Land $244,922.50 $303,694.34 $397,127.63 Improvements 65,076 . 34 40,345 . 88 1 ,054 . 89 $309,998.84 $344,040.22 $398,182.52 +34.041.38 +88.183.68 Section 17: Land $231,746.34 $287,356.41 $375,763.24 Improvements 70,340.46 43,609.51 1,140.22 $302,086.80 $330,965.92 $376,903.46 +28,879.12 +74.816.66 Section 18: Land $231,404.71 $286,932.80 $375,209.31 Improvements 37,941.87 23,523.11 615.04 $269,346.58 $310,455.91 $375,824.35 +41,109.33 +106,477.77 Total: Land $5,921,928.03 $7,342,959.50 $9,602,062.77 Improvements 4.462.480. 10 2,766.637.87 72,337 .02 $10,384,408.13 $10,109,597.37 $9,674,399.79 —274,810.76 —710.008.34 (a) Not including the "Real Estate of Corporations." 64 The assessed values of land and improvements in these sections together with their ratios are as follows : Assessed Values and Ratios in the Various Assessment Sections of the Bronx (Standard Composite Ratio: 38. 71 : 61 . 29) Assessed Values Taxes Payable Improvements Land Ratios Section 9 $62,698,340 $70,558,716 47.1:52.9 Decreased ' 10 71,960,800 60,307,855 54.5:45.5 " 11 80,223,775 92,349,461 46.5:53.5 " ' 12 13,054,480 24,788,011 34.5:65.5 Increased ' 13 3,141,565 15,363,145 17.0:83.0 " ' 14 4,246,700 12,824,045 24.9:75.1 " ' 15 8,115,765 19,736,076 29.2:70.8 " ' 16 3,693,595 13,901,281 21.0:79.0 " ' 17 3,992,375 13,153,430 23.9:76.7 " " 18 2,163,500 13,134,040 14.1:85.9 " An inspection of the ratios reveals the fact that the real estate in three sections (nine, ten and eleven) will pay smaller taxes while that in the other seven sections will pay greater. Sections nine, ten and eleven comprise the southwest portion of the borough — that which lies nearest the center of the city. The amounts of the increases and decreases in the levies in real estate in the various assessment sections are shown in the table on page 64. It will be noticed that the net reduction upon the land and im- provements in the borough would be $274,810.76 under the plan to halve the rate on buildings and $710,008.34 under the full plan. The increases, in those sections where the taxes would be raised, are relatively slight in amount. 65 D. EFFECTS IN SELECTED SECTIONS OF THE BOROUGH (1). Sample District from Assessment Section Nine Increased 11 Decreased 196 207 . Section Nine is one of the three Bronx sections whose taxes would be decreased. If the rate on buildings were halved the real estate in this section would pay smaller taxes by $121,488.59. If the full plan were adopted its tax bill would be decreased $314,209.21. This is in spite of the fact that approximately one-fourth of the land value of the section is made up of vacant lots ($18,663,715 as compared with $70,558,716). The taxes on this land would be increased from $328,830.40 to $407,736.85 under the plan to halve the building rate and to $533,179.41 under the full plan, but the decrease in the taxes on buildings vVould more than counter- balance this. The character of the improvements in the section can be judged from the following data: Classification of Buildings in Assessment Section Nine, Borough of The Bronx Ntunber Percentage Single-family houses 2,334 34 Two-family houses 987 14 Tenements 2,969 43 Miscellaneous buildings 633 9 Total 6,923 100 Tenements and small houses of the one and two-family type consti- tute the bulk of improvements. The average of the value of the build- ings is $9,056 and that of the improved plots is $7,496. It will be seen that there would be a considerable decrease in the taxes on the parcels in this section. The sample selected consists of two assessment blocks (2284 and 2286) lying between Willis and Brook avenues. One block is that be- tween 139th and 140th streets and the other by 141st and 142nd streets. In these two blocks, the vacant lots and exempt property being dis- regarded, there are 207 parcels, almost all of them small two-story houses. The average house is assessed for $2,924 and the average lot for $3,372. Of these 207 parcels all except eleven would receive decreases in taxes. All except one of these eleven are on Willis Avenue, and they comprise the more expensive parcels in the group. The assessed values of the parcels in the sample grouped in the usual fashion are: Assessed Values of Parcels in the Sample From Assessment Section Nine, Borough of the Bronx Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $41,700 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 563,600 Total $605,300 $88,500 609,500 $130,200 1,173,100 $698,000 $1,303,300 The amounts by which the taxes in the parcels will be increased and decreased are shown in the following table : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in the Sample from Assessment Section Nine, Borough of The Bronx Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Gboup A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land $734.70 1.559.25 $455.50 1.933.41 —$279.20 +374.16 $11.91 2,528.24 —$722.79 +968.99 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements Land $2,293.95 $9,929.90 10,738.60 $2,388.91 $6,156.31 13,315.44 + $94.96 —$3,773.59 +2,576.84 $2,540.15 $160.96 17,412.02 +$246.20 —$9,768.94 +6,673.42 Total: Improvements Land $20,668.50 $10,664.60 12.297.85 $19,471.75 $6,611.81 15.248.85 —$1,196.75 —$4,052.79 +2,951.00 $17,572.98 $172.87 19,940.26 —$3,095.52 —$10,491.73 +7.642.41 $22,962.45 $21,860.66 —$1,101.79 $20,113.13 —$2,849.32 If the half rate on buildings were adopted the taxes on the eleven parcels would increase $94.96 while the taxes on 196 parcels would decrease $1,196.75. In case the full rate were adopted the increase would be $246.20 and the decrease $3,095.52. The average parcel at present pays $110.93 in taxes. This charge would be $105.61, or $5.32 less, under the half-rate plan and would be $97.16, or $13.77 less, under the full plan. The reduction, it will be seen, is not great, being in the first case less than five per cent, and under the full plan approximately twelve and one-half per cent. Practically all of the houses included in this sample are rented. According to the assessment roll one man owns 94 of the 207 parcels. If the rate on buildings were halved and the entire reduction in the house- tax passed on to the tenants the annual rents paid by the occupants of 67 these houses might be reduced at the most $3,052.79, or $14.75 on each parcel. The same action which would deprive the landlords of this sum would also decrease their total tax bill $1,101.79, but would increase the tax on their land $2,951.00. Assuming an interest rate of five per cent., the selling value of the land might be expected to depreciate $59,020 or approximately eight and one-half per cent.* (2). Sample District from Assessment Section Ten Increased 12 Decreased 87 99 In Section Ten, it will be recalled, taxes upon real estate in general would be decreased even more than in Section Nine, just discussed.f This is in spite of the fact that there is greater percentage of vacant lots, almost one-third of the total land value of the section consisting of such property ($19,243,190 as compared with $60,307,855). Under the plan to halve the rate on buildings, this vacant land would pay $420,- 396.35 instead of $339,039.99. Under the full plan it would pay $549,- 733.68, an increase of $210,693.68. The total value of the improvements is very high compared with the value of the land on which they stand, the ratio being improvements, 63.7, to land, 36.3. The standard com- posite ratio is 38.71 (improvements) to 61.28 (land). The character of the improvements is shown by the following summary: Classification of Buildings in Assessment Section Ten, Borough of The Bronx Number Percentage Single-family houses 1,472 24 Two-family houses 1>264 21 Tenements 2,905 47 Miscellaneous buildings 495 8 Total 6,136 100 One and two-family houses and approximately the same number of tenements make up the bulk of the buildings. The average of the building values is $11,728 and of the improved plots $6,692. The de- creases upon the parcels is so considerable, the values being as they are, that they counterbalance the great increase in the taxes on vacant land. The sample district of this section consists of twelve blocks front as follows: — those included in the square bounded by 168th and 169th streets, and Union and Prospect avenues; those on both sides of Beck * These statements assume, of course, that the change is made suddenly and that there is no opportunity for the effects to be discounted beforehand. Detailed data for this section is given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 190-193. t The reduction would be $226,843.99 under the half-rate plan and $586,993.04 under the full plan. Street and the east side of Kelly Street between Longwood and Leggett avenues and those on both sides of 156th Street between Kelly and Beck streets. In these blocks there are ninety-nine houses. In the case of twelve parcels taxes would be increased by the adoption of the plan to untax buildings. For the other eighty-seven there would be a decrease. The parcels where taxes would be increased average $7,900 in value while those whose taxes would be decreased average $8,753. The assessed values grouped according to the effect of the tax stand as follows : Assessed Values of Parcels in the Sample from Assessment Section Ten, Borough OF the Bronx Improvements Land $55,600 335,500 Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes wotild be increased $30,300 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 426,000 Total $456,300 $85,900 761,500 $391,100 $847,400 The increases and decreases in the taxes on these parcels are shown in the accompanying table : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in the Sample of Assessment Section Ten, Borough of The Bronx Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land $533.85 979.60 $330.97 1,214.67 —$202.88 +235.07 $8.65 1,588.36 —$525.20 -1-608.76 $1,513.45 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements. . . . Land Total: Improvements. . . . Land $14,930. -1-$32.19 $13,528.42 —$1,401.67 -F$83.£ $7,505.57 $4,653.28 —$2,852.29 $121.67 —$7,383.90 5,911.07 7,329.50 4-1,418.43 9,584.46 +3,673.39 $13,416.64 $11,982.78 —$1,433.86 $9,706.13 -$3,710.51 $8,039.42 $4,984.25 —$3,055.17 $130.32 —$7,909.10 6,890.67 8,544.17 -1-1,653.50 11,172.82 +4,282.15 -$3,626.95 An inspection of the names of the owners in this section reveals very few duplications, indicating a larger degree of home ownership by occupiers than in the previous sample. It appears from the table that, if the rate on improvements were halved, there would be a diminution in the taxes on the structures of $3,055.17. This means a potential reduc- tion in annual rents, under certain assumed conditions, of $30.86 for each house in the sample district. The increase in the tax on land, on the other hand, would diminish the income of the owners $1,653.50. If this be capitalized (interest rate, five per cent), it appears that a depreciation of $33,070 in the selling value of the land is in prospect. The average parcel, under the assumed conditions, would decrease $334.04 — from $3,950.56 to $3,616.52.* (j). Sample District From Assessment Section Eleven Increased 20 Decreased 138 158 Section Eleven, the third Bronx section whose taxes would be de- creased by the adoption of the proposed plan,f contains much vacant land, ($37,123,496 as compared with a total land value of $92,349,461), but, again, the improvements form so high a percentage of the value of the improved parcels that the decrease on such parcels more than counterbalances the increases on the vacant lots. The character of the buildings in the section is shown by the follow- ing table: Classification of Buildings in Assessment Section Eleven, Borough of The Bronx Number Percentage Single-family houses 4,045 42 Two-family houses 1,992 21 Tenements 2,974 31 Miscellaneous 550 6 Total 9,561 100 It will be noted that the one and two-family houses constitute nearly two-thirds of the total buildings. The sample from this section consists of six blocks-front as follows : East 169th and 170th streets between Findlay and Teller avenues. East 170th Street, Teller to Clay avenues, and between East 169th and 170th streets on Findlay Avenue (east side), on Teller Avenue (both sides) and Clay Avenue (west side). In this sample there are 158 houses. The average parcel is assessed at $6,320 (house, $3,372 and land, $2,948). In the case of only twenty of these parcels would taxes be increased. All the remainder, 138 parcels, would pay lower taxes. The average value of the parcels whose taxes would be increased is considerably above the average of all, being $7,065 as compared with $6,320. The assessed values, classified in the usual fashion, follow : • Detailed information in regard to this sample may be found in ah appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 194-195. t Cf. supra, p. C4-C5. 70 Assessed Values of Parcels in the Sample from Assessment Section Eleven, Borough of The Bronx Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $46,200 $95,100 $141,300 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 486,600 370,700 857,300 Total $532,800 $465,800 $998,600 Applying the tax rates, the results shown in the following table are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Assessment Section Eleven, Borough of The Bronx, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements $813.98 1,675.54 $504.65 2,077.60 —$309.33 +402.06 $13.19 2,716.79 —$800.79 +1,041.25 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements Land $2,489.52 $8,573.26 6,531.25 $2,582.25 $5,315.23 8,098.50 + $92.73 —$3,258.03 + 1,567.25 $2,729.98 $138.97 10,590.05 + $240.46 —$8,434.29 +4,058.80 Total: Improvements Land $15,104.51 $9,387.24 8,206.79 $13,413.73 $5,819.88 10,176.10 —$1,690.78 —$3,567.36 +1,969.31 $10,729.02 $152.16 13,306.84 —$4,375.49 —$9,235.08 +5,100.05 $17,594.03 $15,995.98 —$1,598.05 $13,459.00 —$4,135.03 The net decrease in taxes under the half-rate plan would be $1,598.05 or $10.11 per parcel. The movement is nearly all in one direction, the increases on the few parcels in Group A amount to only $92.73, while the decreases in Group B are $1,690.78. Altogether there would be, under the assumed conditions, a decrease of $3,567.36 in the tax on buildings if the rate levied on them were halved. This means a possible decrease in rent of $22.58 per house per year. There is little grouping of ownership in the section, indicating some degree of home ownership. The same action which would tend to re- duce rents in this fashion would decrease net land revenue $1,969.31 and, at an assumed interest rate of five per cent., depreciate the selHng value of the land $39,386.20. The average plot might be expected to decrease in value $249— from $2,948 to $2,699.* The details for this sample are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, 71 (4). Sample District from Assessment Section Twelve Increased 4 Decreased 79 83 Assessment Section Twelve lies south and east of Van Cortlandt Park. The untaxing of buildings would, it will be recalled,* increase the taxes on the real estate of this district. This is because of the very- large proportion of vacant land, the vacant lots of this section being assessed at $15,131,761, and the improved lots at only $9,656,250, the vacant lots thus constituting three-fifths of the total land value. In the case of the improved parcels alone, however, the building value con- stitutes a high percentage of the total value (57.4 per cent.). As will appear from an inspection of the following table, the single- family dwelling is the predominant type of improvement. Classification of Buildings in Assessment Section Twelve, Borough of the Bronx Number Percentage Single-family houses 1,454 47. 9 Two-family houses 842 27. 8 Tenements 335 11. 1 Miscellaneous 397 13. 2 Total 3,028 100. The sample selected consists of the following blocks front: Briggs Avenue, (east side), 194th to 196th streets and Bedford Park Boulevard to 201st Street; Bainbridge Avenue, (west side) 194th to 196th streets and Bedford Park Boulevard to 201st Street; Bedford Park Boulevard, (north side), from Briggs to Bainbridge avenues; 201st Street (south side), Briggs to Bainbridge avenues; and the four sides of the block bounded by 201st Street, Bainbridge Avenue, Perry Avenue and Mosholu Park Boulevard. In this sample there are eighty-three parcels. In only four cases would the taxes be increased. The average value of these four parcels is $10,800, while that of the 79 parcels would be decreased is only $8,849. The assessed values grouped in the usual fashion are : Assessed Values of Parcels in the Sample from Assessment Section Twelve, Borough of The Bronx Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $15,300 $27,900 $43,200 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 403,000 296,100 699,100 Total $418,300 $324,000 $742,300 • Cf. supra, pp. 64-65. 72 By applying the tax rates, the following results are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in the Sample of Assessment Section Twelve, Borough of The Bronx, Under the Present System and Under THE Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land $269.57 491.56 $167.12 609.52 —$102.45 +117.96 $4.37 797.04 —$265.20 +305.48 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements Land $761 . 13 $7,100.34 5,216.90 $776.64 $4,402.05 6,468.75 + $15.51 —$2,698.29 + 1,251.85 $801.41 $115.10 8,458.90 + $40.28 —$6,985.24 +3,242.00 Total: Improvements Land $12,317.24 $7,369.91 5,708,46 $10,870.80 $4,569.17 7,078.27 —$1,446.44 — $2,800.74 +1,369.81 $8,574.00 $119.47 9,255.94 —$3,743.24 —$7,250.44 +3,547.48 $13,078.37 $11,647.44 —$1,430.93 $9,375.41 —$3,702.96 — ^.i If the rate on buildings be halved, it appears that the net taxes on these 83 parcels will be decreased $1,430.93 or $17.23 per parcel. There is little grouping of ownership but if the houses were all rented there would be the sum of $2,800.74, decreased taxes on houses, which under certain conditions might be available for lowered rents. This would mean a reduction of $33.74 per parcel. At the same time the net annual income to the owners of the plots would diminish $1,369.81. Capitalized (interest rate, five per cent.) this sum would be $27,396.20. The owner of the average plot could then anticipate a reduction in the selling value of his plot of $330— from $3,904 to $3,574.* (5). Sample District from Assessment Section Fifteen Increased Decreased 117 117 The great bulk of the land in Section Fifteen, Borough of the Bronx, is vacant, $15,881,191 as compared with $19,736,076. This section extends from the Sound to Bronx River, between Bronx and Pelham parkways and Westchester Avenue and Middletown Road. Where the parcels are improved, the building values bear a high proportion to the value of the land (68 per cent.). The real estate in the section as a whole, it will be recalled,! would pay heavier taxes under the plan to untax buildings, but the taxes on typical improved plots would be decreased. * Detailed statistics for the section are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 199-200. t Cf. supra, pp. 64-65. 73 The character of the improvements in the section is shown in the following tabulation : Classification of Buildings in Assessment Section Fifteen, Borough of The Bronx Number Percentage Single-family houses 1,073 Two-family houses 1,386 Tenements 205 Miscellaneous buildings 247 Total 2,911 100 Here the tenements are a small factor, the one and two-family houses constituting 85 per cent, of the total number of buildings. The sample selected consists of the fronts of eight blocks as follows : Morris Park Avenue, (north side), between Amethyst Avenue and Victor Street and between Cruger and Holland avenues ; Rhinelander Avenue, (south side), Unionport Road to Victor Street; and the follow- ing blocks between Rhinelander and Morris Park avenues, Amethyst Avenue and Unionport Road, (east side), Victor Street, (west side), Cruger Avenue (east side), and Holland Avenue (west side). In the district thus described there are 117 houses. The total assessed values of these parcels are improvements, $369,100, and land, $162,550. The average house is assessed for $3„155 and the plot on which it stands for $1,389; total, $4,544. In every case the taxes on these parcels would be decreased by the adoption of the plan to untax buildings. The follow- ing table shows the amounts of the decreases: Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Assessment Section Fifteen, Borough of The Bronx Present Rate on Improvements System One -Half Increase or Levy Levy Decrease Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements $6,503.06 J4,031.75 —$2,471.31 Land 2,863.92 3,551.15 +687.23 Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy $7,582.90 -$1,784.08 Increase or Decrease -$6,397.65 -1-1,779.76 The net decrease in taxes on the average parcel under the plan to halve the rate on buildings is $15.25. The gross decrease in the tax on buildings would be $2,471.31. There is considerable grouping of owner- ship indicating that many of these houses are rented. If the entire de- crease in the tax on buildings were passed on to the tenants, rents would be decreased $21.12 per parcel per year. At the same time the owners of the plots would receive $687.28 less each year. As a consequence their 74 land might be expected to depreciate in price (interest rate five per cent.) $13,745.60. Each plot would under these conditions sell for $117 less, for $1,272 instead of $1,389.* (6). Sample District from Assessment Section Seventeen Increased 8 Decreased 79 87 Assessment Section Seventeen, Borough of the Bronx, which lies to the extreme north, is in all essentials similar to the section just discussed. With a total land value of $13,153,430, its vacant lots alone are assessed at $10,185,855. This predominance of vacant land is the cause for the increased taxes which real estate as a whole in this section would be called upon to bear,t were the rate on buildings decreased. Of the parcels which are improved, the buildings form a high per- centage of the total value (57 per cent.). The character of the improve- ments is shown in the following statement : Classification of Buildings in Assessment Section Seventeen, Borough of The Bronx Number Percentage Single-family houses |16 55 Two-family houses 528 6b Tenements 38 6 Miscellaneous ^^^ * Total 1.491 100 In this case ninety per cent, of the structures are small houses. ' The sample selected consists of eleven fronts of blocks as follows : 222nd Street (north side), Barnes to Bronxwood avenues; 223rd Street (both sides), between the same avenues; 224th Street (south side), between the same avenues and on both sides between the White Plains Road and Barnes Avenue; 225th Street (south side), between the road and Barnes Avenue; the White Plains Road (east side), 224th to 225th streets; and Barnes Avenue (east side), 222nd Street to 223rd Street and (both sides) 223rd to 224th streets. In the sample are 87 houses. Their average value is $4,809. In the case of only eight of these parcels would the taxes be increased if the rate on buildings were lowered. Moreover, the average value of the parcels whose taxes would be increased is greater than that of those whose taxes would be decreased. • The details for this sample are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 201-202. t Cf. supra, pp. 64-65. 75 The assessed values, grouped according to effect of the imposition of the plan, are as follows : Assessed Values of Parcels in the Sample from Assessment Section Seventeen, Borough of The Bronx Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $13,500 $31,600 $45,100 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 263,600 109,700 373,300 Total $277,100 $141,300 $418,400 By applying the tax rates the following figures, showing the amounts of the increases and decreases, are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Assessment Section Seventeen, Borough of The Bronx Present System Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Increase or Increa.se or Levy Levy Decrease Levy Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land $237.85 556.75 $147.46 690.35 —$90.39 + 133.60 $3.86 902.74 —$233.99 +345.99 S794.60 $837.81 + $43.21 $906.60 + $112.00 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would beTdecreased: Improvements Land $4,644.29 1,932.77 $2,879.36 2,396.56 —$1,764.93 +463.79 $75.28 3,133.88 —$4,569.01 + 1,201.11 $6,577.06 $5,275.92 —$1,301.14 $3,209.16 —$3,367.90 Total: Improvements Land $4,882.14 2,489.52 $3,026.82 3,086.91 —$1,855.32 +597.39 $79.14 4,036.62 —$4,803.00 + 1,547.10 $7,371.66 $6,113.73 —$1,257.93 $4,115.76 —$3,255.90 To halve the tax rate on buildings would be to diminish the net taxes on the average parcel $14.46. The reduction in the tax on build- ings alone amounts to $1,855.32 or $21.33 per parcel. These are the sums, which under certain circumstances would be available for lowering rents. The net return to the owners of plots would at the same time be diminished $597.39, or $6.87 per parcel. Such a decrease, capitalized at an assumed interest rate of five per cent., would mean a diminution in the selling value of $11,947.80, or $137.32 per parcel.* For the detailed statistics for the sample, cf. infra, pp. 203-204. 76 E. SUMMARY The presence of the large quantity of vacant land in the Bronx is all that prevents a very large decrease of taxes in this borough under the proposed plans to untax buildings. Vacant lots constitute more than half of the number of parcels and almost half of the land values in the borough.* If the vacant land were disregarded there would be a very considerable decrease in the taxes upon the remaining real estate.f In the samples selected from the various assessment sections it was only an exceptional parcel whose taxes would be increased by the proposed change. In almost every case a substantial net reduction appeared to be involved. Finally, contrary to the situation in Manhattan, those parcels whose taxes would be increased were not, on the average the less valu- able parcels in each group but rather the more valuable ones. This indi- cates that in the Bronx the expenditure for houses by the more well-to- do in the various sections tends to turn toward a larger relative use of land than of buildings. ♦The exact figures are: Assessed Values of Land: Vacant $153,089,599 Total 336,116,060 Number of Parcels: Vacant 34,337 Total 66,598 fThis is indicated by the following figures: Improved Parcels: Land $183,026,461 Improvements 253,280,895 77 V. EFFECTS IN BROOKLYN UNDER CERTAIN ASSUMED CONDITIONS * It has already been pointed out that the adoption of the proposed plan to untax buildings would mean decreased taxes for real estate in the Borough of Brooklyn as a whole.f The effects within the borough will now be examined in some detail. A. TAX RATES The accompanying graph illustrated the probable effects of the adoption of the proposed plans to untax buildings upon the tax rates levied on various types of property within the borough.^ BROOKLYN RATES UPON THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF PROPERTY UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM AND UNDER THE PROPOSED PLANS TO UNTAX BUILDINGS 9% 5 % o r 5 fX D Z < 1 oo >- r i IT z > I J i o 5 > •K It ± p 1 I - 9 PREStNT RME. ON RATE ON SYSTEM IMPROVtMENTt IM^ROVtNltMTS ONE. HALT RfcTtON l.k»tO ONfMUNORtOTH SN UAHO RATI * The most important assumption is that the assessed values will not be disturbed. Cf. supra, p. 18, t Cf. supra, pp. 22-23. {The statistics upon which this graph is based are given in more detail in the table on 78 B. DISTRIBUTION OF THE BURDEN AMONG THE ELEMENTS IN THE TAX BASE The portions of the tax burden borne at present by the various types of property subjected to taxation, together With the probable changes that would result from the adoption of the plan to tax buildings at a lower rate, are shown in the graph which follows : BROOKLYN DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES AMONG THE ELEMENTS OF THE TAX BASE UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM AND UNDER THE PROPOSED PLANS TO UNTAX BUILDINGS PRESENT SYSTEM m til LAND I4.€ MILLIONS IMPROVEMENTS 14.6 MILLIONS RATE ON IMPROVEMENTS - ONE-HALF RATE ON LAND. rs jJcO zS-i LAND IMPROVEMENTS s?^ \ZZ MILLIONS S.I MILLIONS ftOL-. a *, RATE ON IMPROVEMENTS -ONE-ONE-HUNDRETH RATE ON LAND 4i 22 X LAND Z< MILLIONS iMPROVeMCNTSt $t40.Z&5.3^ C. EFFECTS IN THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT SECTIONS OF THE BOROUGH Brooklyn is divided into twenty-live assessment sections, whose boundaries are traced on the map on page 80. The assessed values in these sections together with the ratios compara- ble with the standard composite ratio for Brooklyn are given in the table on page 81. 79 LOWER BAY /^ T L A N T / C O C S ^ A/ BROOKLYN 80 Assessed Values and Ratios in the Various Assessment Sections of Brooklyn (Standard Composite Ratio: 39. U- 60.56) Section Assessed Values Taxes Improvements Land Ratio Payable $59,074,520 $82,879,500 41.6:58.4 Decreased 41,630,640 43,627,860 48.9:51.1 " 50,792,815 42,620,745 54.4:45.6 " 73,479,520 54,778,685 57.3:42.7 " 50,245,035 36,054,290 58.3:41.7 " 93,405,022 69,526,513 57.4:42.6 52,054,901 50,907,754 50.5:49.5 54,035,205 44,436,235 54.9:45.1 29,819,285 33,171,985 47.3:52.7 " 22,550,160 22,480,315 50.1:49.9 " 50,906,645 42,707,090 54.4:45.6 " 28,959,505 20,937,985 58.1:41.9 " 26,496,910 18,517,280 58.9:41.1 " 2,021,745 4,361,255 31.7:68.3 Increased 9,030,880 12,456,020 42.0:58.0 Decreased 50,658,780 46,196,160 52.3:47.7 " 19,491,380 20,039,475 49.3:50.7 " 18,828,220 32,393,205 36.8:63.2 Increased 15,399,305 20,022,900 43.5:56.5 Decreased 15,620,575 22,147,580 42.4:58.6 " 10,941,400 26,094,955 29.5:70.5 Increased 3,866,890 13,476,290 22.3:77.7 " 5,621,455 13,035,505 30.1:69.9 " 1,874,900 7,207,150 20.6:79.4 " 822,080 3,782,427 17.9:82.1 " It will be noted that in the case of seven sections out of the twenty- five the taxes will be increased, while in the other eighteen sections they will be decreased. By referring to the map it can be seen that the sections whose taxes would be increased (14, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25) are in the extreme south-east portion of Brooklyn and in the extreme south-west portion. In all of these sections the vacant land is a very important factor. The amounts of the increases and decreases in the levies on land and improvements in the various assessment sections are shown in the table on pages 82 and 83. The net decrease for the borough would be very considerable— $1,901,935.56 under the half-rate plan and $4,962,585.17 un- der the full plan. 81 Tax Levies Upon the Real Estate (a) in the Various Assessment Sections of Proposed Plans to Levies Rate Rate on Present on Improvements System Improvements One One- One-Half Hundredth Increases and Decreases Rate Rate on on Improvements Improvements One One- One-Half Hundredth ),583.27 -260,517.48 —679,924. -184,494.25 —481,520.71 -331,644.66 —865,560.23 Section 1: Land $1,522,463.26 $1,897,725.06 $2,502,397.32 Improvements 1,085,175.30 676,326.46 17,834.60 $2,607,638.56 $2,574,051.52 $2,520,231.92 Section 2: Land $801,426.34 $998,964.56 $1,317,264.70 Improvements 764,738.20 476,616.71 12,568.29 $1,566,164.54 $1,475,581.27 $1,329,832.99 Section 3: Land $782,926.04 $975,904.25 $1,286,856.68 Improvements 933,043.69 581,511.70 15,334.35 $1,715,969.73 $1,557,415.95 $1,302,191.03 Section 4: Land $1,006,262.53 $1,254,289.46 $1,653,943.79 Improvements 1,349,789.39 841,244.98 22,183.47 $2,356,051.92 $2,095,534.44 $1,676,127.26 Section 5: Land $662,302.89 $825,549.50 $1,088,594.39 Improvements 922,981.19 575,240.33 15,168.98 $1,585,284.08 $1,400,789.83 $1,103,763.37 Section 6: Land $1,277,174.23 $1,591,976.38 $2,099,227.91 Improvements 1,715,812.89 1,069,366.08 28,198.98 $2,992,987.12 $2,661,342.46 $2,127,426.89 Section 7: Land $935,155.08 $1,165,655.21 $1,537,068.00 Improvements 956,227.71 595,960.95 15,715.37 $1,891,382.79 $1,761,616.16 $1,552,783.37 Section 8: Land $816,275.86 $1,017,474.25 $1,341,672.13 Improvements 992,605.10 618,632.85 16,313.23 $1,808,880.96 $1,636,107.10 $1,357,985.36 Section 9: Land $609,356.10 $759,552.21 $1,001,568.38 Improvements 547,768.34 341,392.05 9,002.44 $1,157,124.44 $1,100,944.26 $1,010,570.82 Section 10: Land $412,954.39 $514,740.76 $678,752.65 Improvements 414,237 . 42 258, 170 . 02 6,807 . 89 $827,191.81 $772,910.78 $685,560.54 Section 11: Land $784,512.16 $977,881.32 $1,289,463.71 Improvements 935,134.71 582,814.91 15,368.72 $1,719,646.87 $1,560,696.23 $1,304,832.43 Section 12: Land $384,622.41 $479,425.42 $632,184.77 Improvements 531,974.52 331,548.68 8,742.87 $916,596.93 $810,974.10 $640,927.64 Section 13 : Land $340,155.03 $423,997.57 $559,095.94 Improvements 486,737.64 303,355.17 7,999.42 -141,631.27 $826,892.67 $727,352.74 $567,095.36 3,539.93 —259,797.31 (a) Not including the "Real Estate of Corporations.' 82 THE Borough of Brooklyn, Under the Present System, and Under Untax Buu-dings Levies Rate Rate on Present on Improvements System Improvements, One One- One-Half Hundredth Increases and Decreases Rate Rate on on Improvements Improvements One One- One-Half Hundredth —15,917.36 + 19,656.55 -1-15.037.44 Section 14: Land $80,114.51 $99,861.40 $131,680.24 Improvements 37,138.65 23,146.35 610.36 $117,253.16 $123,007.75 $132,290.60 Section 15: Land $228,812.10 $285,210.47 $376,087.10 Improvements 165,893 . 65 103,391 . 84 2,726 . 42 $394,705.75 $388,602.31 $378,813.52 Section 16: Land $848,604.98 $1,057,771.95 $1,394,809,90 Improvements 930,581 . 53 579,977 . 17 15,293 . 89 $1,779,186.51 $1,637,749.12 $1,410,103.79 Section 17: Land $368,117.14 $458,851.87 $605,055.88 Improvements 358,048.85 223,150.96 5,884.45 $726,165.99 $682,002.83 $610,940.33 Section 18: Land $595,050.22 $741,720.17 $978,054.52 Improvements 345,866.87 215,558.64 5,684.24 $940,917.09 $957,278.81 $983,738.76 Section 19: Land $367,812.66 $458,472.35 $604,555.42 Improvements 282,879.07 176,302.02 4,649.05 $650,691.73 $634,774.37 $609,204.47 Section 20: Land $406,842.19 $507,122.00 $668,706.31 Improvements 286,943.71 178,835.28 4,715.85 $693,785.90 $685,957.28 $673,422.16 Section 21: Land $479,353 . 88 $597,506 . 62 $787,890 . 20 Improvements 200,989 . 14 125,264 . 81 3,303 . 21 $680,343.02 $722,771.43 $791,193.41 Section 22: Land $247,554.06 $308,572.00 $406,892.32 Improvements 71,033.22 44,270.86 1,167.41 $318,587.28 $352,842.86 $408,059.73 Section 23: Land $239,457.01 $298,479.17 $393,583.61 Improvements 103,263.88 64,358.35 1,697.12 $342,720.89 $362,837.52 $395,280.73 Section 24: Land $132,392.46 $165,025.00 $217,606.92 Improvements 34,441.16 21,465.17 566.03 $166,833.62 $186,490.17 $218,172.95 Section 25: Land $69,481.67 $86,607.74 $114,203.57 Improvements 15,101.28 9,411.75 248.19 $84,582.95 $96,019.49 $114,451.76 All Sections: Land $14,399,179.21 $17,948,336.71 $23,667,216.36 Improvements 14,468,407.14 9,017,314.08 237,784.82 +42,428.41 +110,850.39 +34,255.58 +29.868.81 $28,867,586.35 $26,965,650.79 $23,905,001.18 —1,901,935.56 83 D. EFFECTS IN SELECTED SECTIONS OF THE BOROUGH (1). Sample District from Assessment Section Five Increased 4 Decreased 148 152 Vacant land accounts for less than one-fourth of the total land value of Assessment Section Five, Borough of Brooklyn ($8,999,460 as com- pared with $36,054,290). At the same time the value of the buildings makes up a very large share of the total value of improved real estate ($50,245,035 as compared with $77,299,865). It is readily seen that the adoption of the plan would mean much decreased taxes for this section.* The following table reveals the type of the improvements : Classification of Buildings in Assessment Section Five, Borough of Brooklyn Number Percentage Single-family houses 2,879 32 Two-family houses 3,519 40 Tenements 2,148 24 Miscellaneous 321 4 Total 8,867 100 Small houses comprise 72 per cent, of the total number of structures. The sample selected from this section consists of the block bounded by Albany Avenue, Park Place, Troy Avenue, and Sterling Place, and of three fronts of the block bounded by Troy Avenue, Park Place, Sterling Place and Schenectady Avenue. There are 152 small houses in this sample and in the case of only four would the taxes be increased. The four parcels whose taxes would be increased in this case average much less in value than those whose taxes would be decreased ($3,000 as com- pared with $5,018). The assessed values arranged according to the effect of the proposed plan are as follows : Assessed Values of Real Estate in Section Five, Borough of Brooklyn Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $3,375 $8,625 $12,000 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 471,555 271,025 742,580 Total $474,930 $279,650 $754,580 By applying the tax rates the figures given in the following table are obtained: Cf. supra, pp. 81-83. 84 Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Section Five, Borough of Brooklyn, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Levy Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements $62 . 00 $38 . 64 —$23 .36 $1 . 02 —$60 . 98 Land 158.44 197.49 -f39.05 260.42 -flOl.98 $220.44 $236.13 +$15j69~ $261.44 -f$41.00 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements $8,662 . 28 $5,398 . 69 —$3,263 . 59 $142 . 36 —$8,519 . 92 Land 4,978.62 6,205.77 +1,227.15 8,183.11 -|-3,204.49 $13,640.90 $11,604.46 —$2,036.44 $8,325.47 —$5,315.43 Total: Improvements $8,724.28 $5,437.33 —$3,286.95 $143.38 —$8,580.90 Land 5,137.06 6,403.26 -(-1,266.20 8,443.53 4-3,306.47 $13.861.34 $11,840.59 —$2,020.75 $8.586.91 —$5,274.43 It appears that to halve the tax rate on buildings would result in a decrease in the net taxes on this group of 152 parcels of $2,020.75 or $13.30 per parcel. The reduction in the tax on buildings alone would be $3,286.95, and if this were passed on as lower rents to the tenants it would mean $21.62 less in the annual rent on the average house. The owners of the plots would sufifer a diminution of $1,266.20 in the net annual return from the land. Capitalized at five per cent, this amounts to $25,324.00, or a depreciation in the selling price of each parcel of land equal to $166.61.* (2). Sample District from Assessment Section Six Increased 7 Decreased 123 130 In Section Six vacant land is of still less importance than it was shown to be in the section just discussed. Out of a total assessed land value of $69,526,513, only $2,358,280 is credited to vacant lots. Here again the buildings are responsible for the bulk of the value of improved real estate (improvements $93,405,022; total, $160,573,255). This ex- plains the decrease in the taxes on the real estate of the section in general,! a decrease greater than that of any other section in Brooklyn. The buildings in the section may be grouped as follows : Classification of Buildings in Assessment Section Six, Borough of Brooklyn Number Percentage Single-family houses 11,879 54 Two-family houses 4,313 20 Tenements 4,941 22 Miscellaneous 941 4 Total 22,074 100 * The details of the sample are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 205-207. f Cf. supra, pp. 79-83. 85 Small houses, it will be noticed, constitute 74 per cent, of the total number. The sample selected, which contains 130 small houses, consists of one side each of Decatur and McDonough streets between Lewis and Reid avenues and one side of Reid Avenue between McDonald and Decatur streets. The average parcel is assessed at $8,061 (building, $5,320, and land $2,741). In the cases of only seven out of the 130 parcels would the taxes be increased by the adoption of the plan to untax buildings. These parcels, as in the previous section, average lower in value than the parcels whose taxes would be decreased. The assessed values, grouped in the usual manner are : Assessed Values of Parcels in Sample from Section Six, Borough of Brooklyn Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $14,125 $33,075 $47,200 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 677,415 323,275 1,000,690 Total $691,540 $356,350 $1,047,890 The tax levies arrived at by applying the tax rates to the foregoing valuations are: Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample from Section Six, Borough OF Brooklyn, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Group' A: Parcels whose taxes woiild be increased: Improvements Land $259.47 607.57 $161.71 757.33 —$97.76 + 149.76 $4.26 998.64 —$255.21 +391.07 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements Land $867.04 $12,443.84 5,938.43 $919.04 $7,755.52 7,402.16 + $52.00 —$4,688.32 + 1,463.73 $1,002.90 $204.51 9,760.71 + $135.86 —$12,239.33 +3,822.28 Total: Improvements Land $18,382.27 $12,703.31 6,546.00 $15,157.68 $7,917.23 8,159.49 —$3,224.59 —$4,786.08 + 1,613.49 $9,965.22 $208.77 10,759.35 —$8,417.05 —$12,494.54 +4,213.35 $19,249.31 $16,076.72 —$3,172.59 $10,968.12 —$8,281.19 The adoption of the half-rate plan, it will be seen, would mean a net reduction for these 130 parcels of $3,172.59, or $24.40 per parcel. The maximum reduction in rent is represented by the decrease in building taxes which is $4,786.08, or $36.82 per parcel. Net annual revenues to the owners of the plots would be diminished $1,613.49, or $12.41 per plot. Capitalized* this would mean a possible diminution in the value of the average plot of $248.20.t (3). Sample District from Assessment Section Eight Increased 1 Decreased 161 162 Assessment Section Eight has the same characteristics as the two preceding ones— a small proportion of vacant land ($2,079,290 as com- pared with a total land value of $44,436,235), and a high proportion of building value to land value in the improved parcels ($54,035,205, build- ings, as compared with $42,356,945, land). Taxes on real estate as a whole in this section would decrease considerably by the adoption of the proposed plan.| The typical improvement in this section is the tenement. This is apparent from the following data : Classification of Buildings in Assessment Section Eight, Borough of Brooklyn Number Perceritage Single-family houses 445 5 Two-family houses 2,289 28 Tenements 4,473 55 Miscellaneous 953 12 Total 8,160 100 The sample selected consist of 162 parcels from assessment blocks 2,199, 2,200, and 2,201, extending between Bedford and Division avenues and Keap and Hooper streets. The parcels average $6,926 in value. If the plan to untax buildings were adopted, only one parcel out of the 162 would pay increased taxes. This parcel is more valuable than the average, being assessed at $10,500. The assessed values of the parcels in the sample, grouped according to the effect of the proposed plan, are as follows : * Interest rate, five per cent. t For details of the parcels in this sample, cf. infra, pp. 208-210. J Cf. supra, pp. 79-83. 87 Assessed Values of Real Estate in Sample from Section Eight, Borough of Brooklyn Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes wovdd be increased $2,900 $7,600 526,650 $10,500 Group B: Parcels whose taxes wotild be decreased . . . 584,800 1,111,450 Total $587,700 $534,250 $1,121,950 The following table shows the result of extending the tax rates against the preceding values : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample Section Eight, Borough of Brooklyn, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Rate on Improvements One-Half Increase or Decrease Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land $53.27 139.61 $33.20 174.02 -$20.07 -f34.41 -I- $37. 47 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements. . . Land Total: Improvements. Land $10,742.54 9,674.35 $6,695.20 12,058.92 —$4,047.34 -1-2,384.57 $176.55 15,901.25 —$10,565.99 -1-6,226.90 $20,416.89 $18,754.12 —$1,662.77 $16,077.80 —$4,339.09 $10,795.81 9,813.96 $6,728.40 12,232.94 —$4,067.41 -1-2,418.98 $177.43 16,130.72 —$10,618.38 +6,316.76 $18,961.34 —$1,648.43 $16,308.15 Under the plan to halve the rate on buildings, there would be a net reduction on the parcels in the sample of $1,648.43, or $10.18 per parcel. The maximum reduction in rents would correspond with the amount of the decrease in the tax on buildings, which is $4,067.41, or $25.11 per parcel. On the other hand, the same action would diminish the net annual revenue of the owners of the plots $2,418.98, or $14.93 per plot. Capitalized* this means a possible decrease in selling value of $298.60 per plot.f (4). Sample District from Assessment Section Twelve Increased Decreased 98 98 Assessment Section Twelve contains relatively more vacant land than the preceding sections ($6,281,550 as compared with a total land • Interest rate, five per cent. t For the detailed statistics for the sample, cf. infra, pp. 211-213. value of $20,937,985). However, the value of buildings is so great as compared with the value of the plots on which they stand (improve- ments, $28,959,505; improved land $14,656,435), as to counterbalance the influence of the vacant lands and the taxes for the section as a whole show a decrease.* In this section, again, tenements form, the bulk of the improvements. This is made plain by the following table : Classification of Buildings in Assessment Section Twelve, Borough OF Brooklyn Number Percentage Single-family houses 1,386 21 Two-family houses 1-526 23 Tenements 3,436 51 Miscellaneous "^14 5 Total 6,662 100 The sample from this section consists of the eight blocks-front in the district stretching from New Jersey Avenue to Bradford Street and from Belmont to Sutter avenues. Every one of the ninety-eight parcels in this section would receive a decrease in taxes. The assessed values of the parcels in the sample section are, improve- ments $318,600 and land $106,100. The average parcel is assessed, then, at $4,333.67. The levies against this property are shown in the following table: Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample from As ment Section Twelve Borough of Brooklyn, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present Rate on Improvements Rate on Improvements System One-Half One One-Hundredth Increase or Levy Levy Decrease Levy Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements J5,852.5o $3,647.56 —$2,204.99 $91.18 —$5,761.37 Land 1,949.01 2,429 .41 -f480.40 3,203.50 -H,254.49 $7,801.56 $6,076.97 —$1,724.59 $3,294.68 —$4,506.88 The adoption of the half rate would reduce the net taxes of the owners of these 98 parcels $1,724.59, or $17.60 per parcel. The maximum available for lowered rents would be $2,204.99, or $22.50 per parcel per year. The decrease in net annual return to the owners of the plots would be $480.40, or $4.90 per year per parcel, f ♦ Cf. supra, p. 79-83. I The details for the parcels in the sample are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 212-213. (5). Sample District from Assessment Section Sixteen Increased 4 Decreased 238 242 Assessment Section Sixteen (located in Flatbush), Borough of Brooklyn, contains considerable vacant land ($9,789,375 as compared with a total land value of $46,196,160), but here again the building value is great enough ($50,658,780; improved land, $36,406,785) to counter- balance, so that there would be a net decrease in taxes for the real estate of the entire section.* The single-family houses outnumber all other types of building in this section. The details are as follows : Classification of Buildings in Sample from Assessment Section Sixteen Borough of Brooklyn Number Percentage Single-family houses 6,303 57 Two-family houses 3,381 31 Tenements 836 8 Miscellaneous 441 4 Total 10,961 100 The sample from this section consists of thirty-two blocks-front selected from the following districts : Dorchester Road to Ditmas Avenue ; Stratford to Marlborough roads ; Ditmas to Newkirk avenues, 16th to 19th streets; Foster Avenue to Avenue G, 17th to 19th streets, In these blocks there are 242 houses. The average parcel is assessed at $10,481.20. Every parcel of the 242, except four, would pay lower taxes were the plans to untax buildings adopted. The four parcels whose taxes would be increased are among the most expensive in the entire sample, averaging $22,325 a piece. The assessed values grouped in the usual fashion are : Assessed Values of Parcels in Sample From Assessment Section Sixteen, Borough of Brooklyn Improve- Land Total ments Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $33,700 $55,600 $89,300 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 1,396,600 1,050,550 2,447,150 Total $1,430,300 $1,106,150 $ 2,536,450 Extending the tax rates against these values, the following results are obtained : * Cf. supra, pp. 79-83. 90 Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample from Assessment Section Sixteen, Borough of Brooklyn, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Levy Decrease Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Increase or Decrease Levy Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements $619.06 $385.82 —$233.24 $10.17 —$608.89 Land 1,021.35 1,273.09 -|-251.74 1,678.74 -f 657. 39 $1,640.41 $1,658.91 -|-$18.50 $1,688.91 4-848.50 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements $25,654.98 $12,027.43 —$13,627.55 $317.16 —$25,337.82 Land 19,298.18 24-054.86 -f4,756.68 31,719.47 -|-12,421.29 $44,953.16 $36,082.29 —$8,870.87 $32,036.63 —$12,916.53 Total: Improvements $26,274.04 $12,413.25 —$13,860.79 $327.33 —$25,946.71 Land 20,319.53 25,327.95 -|-5,008.42 33,398.21 -|-13,078.68 $46,593 . 57 $37,741.20 —$8,852.37 $33,725.54 —$12,868.03 To halve the tax rate on buildings would be to decrease the net taxes on these parcels $8,852.37, or $36.58 per parcel. The maximum available for reduced rents would be $13,860.79, or $57.28 per house each year. The diminution in the net annual return to the owners of the plots would be $5,008.42, or $20.70 per lot. Capitalized* this amounts to $414, which may be accepted as the possible depreciation in the selling value of the average plot.f (6). Sample District from Assessment Section Nineteen Increased 1 Decreased 209 210 Assessment Section Nineteen, Borough of Brooklyn, which fronts on Gravesend Bay, contains a relatively large amount of vacant land ($8,601,325 as compared with a total land value of $20,022,900), but here again the improvements are of sufficient value to turn the tide in favor of a general reduction for the section.^ Single-family houses predominate in Section Nineteen, as is shown by the following table : Classification of Buildings in Assessment Section Nineteen, Borough OF Brooklyn Number Percentage Single-family houses 2,559 61 Two-family houses 1,425 34 Tenements 92 2 Miscellaneous 145 3 Total 4,221 100 * Interest rate, five per cent. t For the details of the parcels in this sample, cf. infra, pp. 216-219. jThe improvements are assessed at $15,399,305 and the improved land for $11,421,575. Cf. supra, pp, 79-83. The sample consists of seventeen blocks-front selected from the following districts: 18th to 19th avenues, 70th to 71st streets; 13th to 14th avenues, 71st to 72nd streets, 73rd to 74th streets and 75th to 77th streets. The 210 parcels are assessed at $4,919.76 per parcel. Every parcel except one would pay lower taxes as a result of the adoption of the plan to untax buildings. This piece of property is assessed at $7,000, considerably more than the average parcel. The assessed values grouped according to the effect of the proposed plan are given in the following table: Assessed Values of Parcels in Sample from Section Nineteen, Borough of Brooklyn Improve- ments Land $4,500 297,600 Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $2,500 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 728,550 Total $731,050 $7,000 1,026,150 $302,100 $1,033,150 Applying the tax rates the following levies are determined : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample from Assessment Section Nineteen, Borough of Brooklyn, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land $45.92 82.66 $28.62 103.04 —$17.30 +20.38 $0.75 135.87 —$45.17 +53.21 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements Land $128.58 $13,383.17 5,466.79 $131.66 $8,340.95 6,814.27 + $3.08 —$5,042.22 + 1,347.48 $136.62 $219.95 8,985.50 + $8.04 —$13,163.22 +3,518.71 Total: Improvements Land $18,849.96 $13,429.09 5,549.45 $15,155.22 $8,369.57 6,917.31 —$3,694.74 —$5,059.52 + 1,367.86 $9,205.45 $220.70 9,121.37 —$9,644.51 —$13,208.39 +3,571.92 $18,978.54 $15,286.88 —$3,691.66 $9,342.07 —$9,636.47 Under the plan to halve the tax rate, the net decrease in taxes on the parcels in the sample is seen to be $3,691.66 or $17.56 on each parcel. The maximum sum available for rent reductions is $5,059.52, or $24.09 per building annually. The prospective decrease in the annual net return 92 to the owners of plots is $1,367.86, or $6.52 per plot. By capitalizing* this sum the probable depreciation in the selHng value of the average plot is found to be $130.40.t (7). Sample District from Assessment Section Twenty Increased 1 Decreased 132 133 In Assessment Section Twenty, located in Flatbush, over one-half of the land is vacant ($12,604,240 as compared with $22,147,580), and yet the taxes for the real estate of the entire section would be decreased by the adoption of the plan to lower the tax on buildings. $ This is because of the very high value of the improvements as compared with the value of the plots on which they stand ($15,620,575 as compared with $9,543,340). The table which follows shows that single-family houses are by far the most important type of improvement. Classification of Buildings in Assessment Section Twenty, Borough OF Brooklyn Number Percentage Single-family houses 2,607 70 Two-family houses 941 25 Miscellaneous 184 5 Total 3,732 100 The sample consists of 133 parcels of an average value of $9,170. The parcels are situated in thirteen blocks-front, selected from these two districts: Avenue G to Avenue H, Westminster to Argyle roads; and Avenue G to Wellington Courts, Rugby Road to 17th Street. In only one parcel out of the entire 133 would taxes be increased and this parcel is clearly an abnormal one, being assessed at $19,000, more than twice as much as the average parcel in the sample. The assessed values, grouped in the usual fashion are: Assessed Values of Parcels in Sample from Assessment Section Twenty, Borough of Brooklyn Improve- Land Total ments Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $6,400 $12,600 $19,000 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 707,930 492,710 1,200,640 Total $714,330 $505,310 $1,219,640 • Interest rate, five per cent. t For details of this sample, cf. infra, pp. 220-223. t Cf. supra, pp. 79-83. 93 By extending the tax rates against these values the following results are secured : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample from Assessment Section Twenty, Borough of Brooklyn, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present Rate on Improvements Rate on Improvements System One-Half One One-Hundredth Increase or Increase or Levy Levy Decrease Levy Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land • • • • $117.57 231.46 $73.27 288.51 —$44.30 +57.05 $1.93 —$115.64 380.43 +148.97 $349.03 $361.78 + $12.75 $382.36 +$33.33 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: $13,004.39 9,050.89 $8,104.88 11,281.78 —$4,899.51 +2,230.89 $213.72 —$12,790.67 Land 14,876.49 +5,825.60 $22,055.28 $19,386.66 —$2,668.62 $15,090.21 —$6,965.07 Total : $13,121.96 9,282.35 $8,178.15 11,570.29 —$4,943.81 +2,287.94 $215.65 —$12,906.31 Land 15,256.92 +5.974.57 $22,404.31 $19,748.44 —$2,655.87 $15,472.57 —$6,931.74 The adoption of the plan to halve the tax rate on buildings would result in a net decrease in the taxes on these parcels of $2,655.87, or $19.97 per parcel. The maximum amount available for reductions in rents is $4,943.81, or $37.17 per parcel. The net annual return to the owners of the plots would be diminished $2,287.94, or $17.20 per parcel. Capital- izing this,* the amount of $344 is obtained as the probable depreciation in the selling value of the average plot.f (8). Sample District from Assessment Section Tzvcnty-Three Increased . Decreased 96 96 The real estate in Section Twenty-Three, one of the Jamaica Bay sections, would bear heavier taxes if the buildings were untaxed. The cause is readily understood when the amount of vacant land is deter- mined. Out of a total land value of $13,035,505 not less than $10,156,- 010 is represented by vacant lots. Such improvements as there are ($5,621,455) bear a high relationship to the value of the land on which they stand ($2,879,495). • Interest rate, five per cent. t For details of this section, cf. infra, pp. 224- 94 The table which follows shows that single-family houses are here once more the most important type : Classification of Buildings in Assessment Section Twenty- Three, Borough of Brooklyn Number Percentage Single-family houses 1,095 Two-family houses '3I9 Miscellaneous 47 Total 1 461 100 The sample consists of 96 parcels with a total assessed value of $554,000 (improvements $345,550, land $208,450). The average parcel, therefore, is assessed at $5,771. The parcels are from the district bounded by Avenue G, 35th Street, Avenue H and 32nd Street. Every parcel of the 96 would pay lower taxes, were the proposal to untax build- ings adopted. The changes in the levies which would result are shown in the following table : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample District from Assessment Section Twenty-Three, Borough of Brooklyn, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements Land $6,347.62 3,829.14 $3,956.10 4,772.96 —$2,391.52 -1-943.82 $104.32 6,293.77 —$6,243.30 -1-2,464 . 63 $10,176.76 $8,729.06 —$1,447.70 $6,398.09 —$3,778.67 Under the plan to halve the tax rate on buildings the net decrease in the taxes on the parcels would be $1,447.70, or $15.08 per parcel. The maximum available for an increase in rents would be $2,391.52, or $24.50 per house. The increase in the total tax on land would be but $943.82, or $9.83 per lot. Capitalizing this sum*, $196.60 is obtained as the probable depreciation in the selling value of the average parcel. f * Interest rate, five per cent. t For details of parcels in this sample, cf. infra, pp. 227-228. F. SUMMARY Vacant land in Brooklyn is not a factor of sufficient importance to aflfect the situation to anything approaching the degree that it affects conditions in the Bronx.* Indeed in only seven sections would there be actual increases in the total taxes on real estate. The value of the improvements in the borough as a whole exceeds the total land value, even including the vacant land (improvements, $787,627,773, and land, $783,859,159). It is clear that with a standard composite ratio of 39.44 (improvements) to 60.56 (land) the average improved parcel in Brooklyn would receive a substantial decrease in taxes under the proposed plans. Finally, the tendency apparent in Manhattan, to decrease the tax burden of the more expensive parcels of each group of houses, reappears in three samples of Brooklyn houses. But on the other hand the opposite ten- dency is present in five samples, the result being not so clear cut as in the case of the other two boroughs. ♦.The figures for vacant lots in Brooklyn: Assessed Values of Land: Vacant J153.123.447 Total 783.859.159 Number of Parcels: Vacant 50.381 Total 214.211 96 VI. EFFECTS IN QUEENS UNDER CERTAIN ASSUMED CONDITIONS* The slight increase which would be the result in Queens if the tax on buildings were lowered has already been commented upon.f An at- tempt will now be made to form an estimate of the probable effects within the borough. A. TAX RATES The graph which follows makes plain the probable effects upon tax rates in Queens of the proposed plans to untax buildings.^ QUEENS RATES UPON THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF PROPERTY UNDER THE PRES- ENT SYSTEM AND UNDER THE PROPOSED PLANS TO UNTAX BUILDINGS 5.0%. n ^ _l 1 o 15% N n n (- 2 U s > 0. 5 > •- I i c - Q z < J ir> (- z u z u t 2 - t- y tc a. o r 0. i 2 O 0> K N N ^J Q Z < -J i5 o o o V H- r S! o o: a- J < z o w d: 111 a o r < h r tu 0. PRESENT RATE ON RATE OH SYSTtM IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS ONE- HALF RATE ON LAND ONE-MOHORKOTH RAT» ON I^HO * The most important condition ia that assessed values will not be changed. Cf. supra, p. 18. t Cf. supra, pp. 22-23. J The statistics upon which this graph is based are given in more detail on p. 21. 97 B. DISTRIBUTION OF BURDEN AMONG THE ELEMENTS IN THE TAX BASE How the burden now borne by land, improvements and personal property would be affected by the proposed plans is shown by accom- panying graph : QUEENS DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES AMONG THE ELEMENTS OF THE TAX BASE UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM AND UNDER THE PROPOSED PLANS TO UNTAX BUILDINGS PRESENT SYSTEM Tf 1?~ LAND IMPROVEMENTS SZ MILLIONS 3.2 MILLIONS RATE ON IMPROVEMENTS - ONE HALF RATE ON LAND i LAND 6.5 MILLIONS IMPROVEMENTS LdMILLIONS RATE ON IMPROVEMENTS -ONE ONEHUNDRETH RATE ON LAND. C. EFFECTS IN THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT SECTIONS OF THE BOROUGH The division lines of the borough utilized for assessment purposes are those of the wards and they are traced on the accompanying map. By an inspection of the following table, which shows the assessed values of improvements and land for each ward, and the ratio between the two, it is possible to determine which wards will pay greater and which smaller taxes under the proposed plans. 98 BOROUGH QUEENS 99 Assessed Values and Ratios in the Various Wards of the Borough of Queens {Standard Composite Ratio: 88.49:61.61) Assessed Values Taxes Payable Improve- Land Ratios ments Wardl $35,069,580 $62,322,945 36:64 Increased Ward 2 48,707,490 63,655,920 43.3:56.7 Decreased Ward 2 21,331,680 49,024,620 30.3:69.7 Increased Ward 4 43,392,677 75,820,135 36.4:63.6 Increased Wards 17,506,930 29,854,500 37:63 Increased It appears that the only ward in which the real estate will pay- lower taxes because of the adoption of the proposed plans is Ward Two (Newtown). The amounts of the increases and decreases are shown in the following table : Tax Levies Upon the Real Estate (a) in the Various Assessment Sections or Borough of Queens, Under the Present System, and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Levies Rate Rate on Present on Improvements, System Improvements, One One- One-Half Hundredth Increases and Decreases ' ' Rate / Rate on on Improvements Improvements, , One One- One-Half Hundredth Ward 1: Land $1,119,687.80 $1,386,747.85 $1,809,110.45 Improvements 630,056.57 390,166.61 10,177.19 $1,749,744.37 $1,776,914.46 $1,819,287.64 Ward 2: Land $1,143,635.89 $1,416,407.88 $1,847,804.05 Improvements 875,073.89 541,895.18 14,134.91 $2,018,709.78 $1,958,303.06 $1,861,938.96 Ward 3: Land $880,771 .42 $1,090,846.82 $1,423,086.67 Improvements 383,242.83 237,325.61 6,190.45 $1,264,014.25 $1,328,172.43 $1,429,277.12 Ward 4: Land $1,362,176.96 $1,687,073.82 $2,200,906.88 Improvements 779,588.50 482,765.23 12,592.55 $2,141,765.46 $2,169,839.05 $2,213,499.43 Ward 5: Land $536,362.96 $664,292.48 $866,616.43 Improvements 314,527 . 75 194,773 . 35 3,080 . 51 $850,890.71 $859,065.83 $871,696.94 All Wards: Land $5,042,635.04 $6,245,368.85 $8,147,524.47 Improvements 2,982,489.54 1,846,925.98 48,175.62 $8,025,124.58 $8,092,294.83 $8,195,700. + $27,170. 0»i.:- -F$69.543.27 —60,406.72 ."— 156,770.82 +64.158.18 +165,262.87 +28,073.59 +71,733.97 +8,175.12 +20.806.23 + $67,170.25 +$170,575.51 (a) This does not include the"ReallEstate of Corporations." 100 It will be noticed that the changes involved — both increases and decreases — are relatively slight and unimportant. If the tax rate were halved the real estate of the whole of the Borough of Queens would pay- only $67,170.25 more taxes than at present. D. EFFECTS IN SELECTED SECTIONS OF THE BOROUGH. (1). Sample District from Ward One Increased 8 Decreased 61 69 The taxes on the real estate in Ward One would be increased.* As usual, this is because of the large amount of vacant land, which is re- sponsible for more than half of the total land value in the ward ($32,347,- 495 as compared with $62,322,945). Indeed the value of the buildings in the ward greatly exceeds the value of the land on which they stand ($35,069,580 as compared with $29,975,450). One and two-family houses are the most common types of improve- ments, as the following table shows : Classification of Buildings in Ward One, Borough of Queens Number Percentage Single-family houses 3,100 38 Two-family houses 2,849 35 Tenements 1,314 16 Miscellaneous 931 11 Total 8,194 100 The sample consists of 69 parcels taken from the two blocks bounded as follows : Crescent, Jamaica, and Ely avenues and Elm Street ; and Trowbridge and Woolsey streets, Hoyt Avenue and Willow Street. The average value of these parcels is $4,151. If the plan to untax buildings were adopted eight of these parcels would pay higher and 61 would pay lower taxes. The average value of the eight parcels is $3,938, somewhat less than that of the parcels whose taxes would be decreased. The assessed values, arranged according to the effect of the adop- tion of the plan upon the taxes payable by the parcels, are presented in the following table: Assessed Value of Parcels in Sample from Ward One, Borough of Queens Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased. . . $10,700 $20,800 $31,500 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased... 143,050 111,850 254,900 Total $153,750 $132,650 $286,400 * Cf. supra, p. 100. 101 By applying the rates of taxation to these values the following re- sults are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample District from Ward One, Borough of Queens, Under the Present System and Under THE Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Levy Increase or Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Geoup A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land $192.24 373.69 $119.04 462,82 —$73.20 -1-89.13 $3.11 003.78 —$189.13 +230.09 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements Land $565.93 $2,570.02 2,009.49 $581.86 $1,591.50 2,488.77 + $15.93 —$978.52 -1-479.28 $606.89 $41.51 3,246.78 + $40.96 —$2,528.51 + 1,237.29 Total: Improvements Land $4,579.51 $2,762.26 2,383.18 $4,080.27 $1,710.54 2,951.59 —$499.24 —$1,051.72 -1-568.41 $3,288.29 $44.62 3,850.56 —$1,291.22 —$2,717.64 +1,467.38 $5,145.44 $4,662.13 —$483.31 $3,895.18 —$1,250.26 Under the plan to halve the tax rate on buildings, the net taxes pay- able by the owners of these sample parcels would be decreased $483.31 or seven dollars per parcel. The maximum available for the reduction of rents is $1,051.72, or $15.24 per house. Net annual returns to the owners of lands would be diminished $568.41, or $8.24 per lot. Capitalized,* this means a probable depreciation in the value of each plot of $164.80.t (2). Sample District from Ward Tzvo Increased . Decreased . 110 110 Ward Two is the only ward in the Borough of Queens where the taxes on real estate would be decreased by the adoption of the plan to untax buildings. ij: Even here the vacant land is a very prominent factor, slightly exceeding the improved land in amount ($33,526,160, vacant, and $30,129,760 improved). The value of improvements is relatively very large, however ($48,707,490). That one and two-family houses are the most common type of im- provement is shown by the following table : • Interest rate assumed to be five per cent. t For details of this sample, cf. infra, pp. 229-230. % Cf. supra, p. 100. 102 Classification of Buildings in Ward Two, Borough of Queens Number Percentage Single-family houses 7,145 39 Two-family houses 5,665 31 Tenements 2,733 15 Miscellaneous 2,689 15 Total 18,232 100 One hundred and ten houses were selected as samples.* The average value of the parcels is $4,233. The total assessed value of the buildings is $349,250, and of the land $118,350. If the rate on buildings were reduced, the taxes on every one of these parcels would be reduced. The amounts of the reductions are shown in the following table : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample Section from Ward Two, Borough of Queens, Under the Present System and Under THE Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present Rate on Improvements Rate on Improvements System One-Half One One-Hundredth Increase or Increase or Levy Levy Decrease Levy Decrease Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements $6,274.59 $3,885.58 —$2,389.01 $101.35 —$6,173.24 Land 2,126.26 2,633.41 +507.15 3,435.46 -t-1,309.20 $8,400.85 $6,518.99 —$1,881.86 $3,536.81 —$4,864.04 The net reduction in taxes, if the rate on buildings were halved, would be $1,881.86 or $17.11 per parcel. The maximum which would be available for lowering rents would be $2,389.01, or $21.72 per house. The net annual returns to the owners of the land would be less by $507.15, or $4.63 per lot. Capitahzing this figure,t the sum of $92.60 is obtained as the probable depreciation of the average plot.J (3). Sample District from Ward Three Increased 4 Decreased 80 84 Ward Three presents an unusual situation. It is one of the wards where taxes would be increased by the plan to untax buildings, if adopted.** Here the vacant land constitutes considerably less than half of the total land value, ($21,802,040 as compared with $49,024,620). The peculiarity of this ward is the relatively low value of the improve- ments when compared with the land on which they stand ($21,331,680 as compared with $27,222,580). Single-family houses are shown once more by the classification table to be the predominant type of improvement. * The selections are from assessment blocks 55, 65, 175 and 176. t Interest rate, five per cent. t For the details of this sample, cf. infra, pp. 231-233. ** Cf. supra, p. 100. 103 Classification of Buildings in Ward Three, Borough of Queens Number 10,268 Percentage Single-family houses 6,971 68 Two-family houses 721 7 Miscellaneous 2,576 25 100 The sample consists of 84 parcels from the district bounded by Lin- coln Street, Parsons Avenue, Madison Avenue and Percy Street, and that bounded by Amity Street, Bowne Avenue, Barclay Street and Par- sons Avenue. The average value of these parcels is $7,251. Only four of the parcels would be charged with heavier taxes under the proposed plan to untax buildings. The average assessed value of these four par- cels is $9,133, a figure considerably higher than the general average. The assessed values of the parcels in the sample grouped in the usual fashion are presented in the following table : Assessed Values of Parcels in Sample from Ward Three, Borough of Queens Improve- ments Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $11,800 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 274,100 Total $285,900 $25,400 297,800 $37,200 571,900 $323,200 $609,100 The changes in the levies involved in the proposed plans are set forth in the table which follows : Taxes Payable by Owners of- Parcels in Sample Section from Ward Three, Borough of Queens, Under the Present System and Under THE Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: ImproTements T.snd $212.00 456.33 $131.28 565.18 —$80.72 + 108.85 $3.42 737.31 —$208.58 +280.98 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements Land J668.33 $4,924.45 5,350.24 $696.46 $3,049.50 6,626.35 + $28.13 —$1,874.95 + 1,276.11 $740.73 $79.54 8,644.54 + $72.40 —$4,844.91 +3.294.30 Total: Improvements Land $10,274.69 $5,136.45 5,806.57 $9,675.85 $3,180.78 7,191.53 —$598.84 —$1,955.67 + 1,384.96 $8,724.08 $82.96 ,9,381.85 —$1,550.61 —$5,053.49 +3,575.28 $10,943.02 $10,372.31 + $570.71 $9,464.81 —$1,478.21 104 To halve the rate on buildings would mean a net reduction in taxes to the owners of the 84 parcels of $570.71, or $6.79 per parcel. The maximum sum available from this source for lowering rents would be $1,955.67, or $23.28 per house. The owners of the plots would receive $1,384.96 less each year as the net annual return from their land. This would be a reduction on each lot of $16.49. Capitalized* this would mean a depreciation in the selling value of each lot of $329.80.t (4). Sample District from Ward Four Increased 21 Decreased 137 158 In Ward Four, where taxes would be slightly increased by the adoption of the proposed plans to untax buildings,^ the vacant land is of greater value than the improved ($41,770,445 as compared with $34,049,- 690). The value of improvements ($43,392,677), however, is consider- ably greater than the value of the plots on which they stand. The classification of buildings given below shows the single-family house to be the typical improvement. Classification of Buildings in Ward Four, Borough of Queens Number Percentage Single-family houses 13,838 68 Two-family houses 4,021 19 Miscellaneous 2,630 13 Total 20,489 100 The sample consists of 158 parcels of an average value of $6,233. Twenty-one of these parcels would have increased taxes, while in 137 cases the taxes would be decreased. The average value of the parcels whose taxes would be increased ($6,900) is slightly greater than the average of the other group. The assessed values, arranged in the usual manner, are : Assessed Values of Parcels in Ward Four, Borough of Queens Improve- Land Total ments Parcels whose taxes would be increased $50,300 $94,600 $144,900 Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 477,755 370,505 $848,260 Total $528,055 $465,105 993,160 * Interest rate, five per cent. t Detailed statistics for this sample are given on pages 234 and 235. t Cf. tupra, p. 100. 105 The increases and decreases in the levies presented herewith are obtained by extending the tax rates against the preceding values : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample from Ward Four, Borough of Queens, Under the Present System and Under THE Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present Rate on Improvements Rate on Improvements System One -Half One One-Hundredth Increase or Increase or Levy Levy Decrease Levy Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements $903.68 $559.61 —$344.07 $8.79 —$894.89 Land 1,699.57 2,104.94 +405.37 2,746.05 + 1,046.48 $2,603.25 $2,664.55 + $61.30 $2,754.84 + $151.59 Gkoup B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements $8,583.30 $5,315.26 —$3,268.04 $138.64 —$8,444.66 Land 6,656.46 8,244.11 +1,587.65 10,755.02 +4,098.56 $15,239.76 $13,559.37 —$1,680.39 $10,893.66 —$4,346.10 Total: Improvements $9,486.98 $5,874.87 —$3,612.11 $147.43 —$9,339.55 Land 8,356.03 10,349.05 + 1,993.02 13,501.07 +5,145.04 $17,843.01 $16,223.92 —$1,619.09 $13,648.50 —$4,194.51 If the rate on buildings is halved the net taxes of the owners of the parcels in the sample section would decrease $1,619,09, or $10.25 per parcel. The maximum available from this source for the reduction of rents would be $3,612.11, or $22.22 per house. Net annual returns to land-owners would be diminished $1,993.02, or $12.61 per lot. Capital- ized,* this amounts to $252.20, which represents the prospective depre- ciation in the selling value of each lot in the sample.f (5). Sample District from Ward Five Increased 19 Decreased 82 101 In Ward Five, also, taxes would be increased. $ Here it is not the preponderance of vacant land which is of greatest importance, for only about one-third of the land is unimproved ($9,966,360, as compared with $29,854,500). It is rather the low percentage of building value to land value in the case of the lands which are improved ($17,506,930, improve- ments, to $19,888,140, lands). Almost all the buildings in the ward are shown by the table which follows, to be one-family houses : * Interest rate, five per cent. t For details of this sample, cf. infra, pp. 236-239. J Cf. supra, p. 100. 106 Classification of Buildings in Ward Five, Borough of Queens Number One-family houses Two-family houses Tenements Miscellaneous .... Total 5.332 Percentage 4,609 86 80 2 266 5 377 7 100 The sample consists of 101 parcels of an average value of $6,728. Nineteen of the 101 parcels would pay heavier taxes under the proposed plans to untax buildings, while 82 would pay lighter taxes. The parcels whose taxes would be increased average $7,321 apiece, somewhat higher than the average in the other group. The assessed values, arranged in the usual fashion, are given in the following table : Assessed Values of Parcels in Sample from Ward Five, Borough of Queens Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased. Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased . . . $37,600 313,775 $101,500 226,625 $139,100 540,400 Total . . $351,375 $328,125 $679,500 The detailed changes which would result in the tax levies, arrived at by extending the tax rates against the preceding values, are given in the following statement : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample Section from Ward Five, Borough of Queens, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Increase or Increase or Levy Levy Decrease Levy Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land $675.52 1,823.54 $418.32 2,258.48 —$257.20 -1-434.94 $10.91 2.946.34 —$664.61 -M. 122. 80 $2,499.06 $2,676.80 -i-$177.74 $2,957.25 + $458.19 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements Land 55,637.25 4,071.52 $3,490.90 5.042.63 —$2,146.35 -f-971.11 $91.06 6,578.47 —$5,546.19 4-2.506,95 $9,708.77 $8,533.53 —$1,175.24 $6,669.53 —$3,039.24 Total: Improvements Land $6,312.77 5,895.06 $3,909.22 7.301.11 —$2,403.55 -f 1,406. 05 $101.97 9,524.81 —$6,210.80 -f 3.629. 75 $12,207.83 $11,210.33 —$997.50 $9,626.78 —$2,581.05 107 The adoption of the plan to tax buildings at one-half the rate used in the case of land would mean $997.50 lower taxes for the owners of the 101 parcels in the sample section. This is $9.88 per parcel. The maxi- mum amount available for decreasing rents would be $2,403.55, or $23.80 per house. Net annual returns to land owners would be diminished $1,406.05, or $13.92 per lot. Capitalized,* this sum becomes $278.40, which represents the probable depreciation in the selling value of each parcel in the sample.f F. SUMMARY Large quantities of vacant landj combine with a fairly low ratio of building to land value in the improved parcels** to cause a slight in- crease in the total taxes charged to the real estate of Queens under the plan to exempt improvements. If the vacant land be eliminated from consideration, the values of the improved parcels are found to form a ratio well within the standard composite ratio for the borough. An overwhelming majority of the individual parcels included within the samples taken in the various wards show decreases in taxes as the proba- ble results of the proposed changes. The parcels whose taxes would be increased were in three wards out of four, the more expensive parcels in the group. * Interest rate, five per cent. t For the details of this sample, cf. infra, pp. 240-242. X The exact figures are: Assessed values of land: Vacant $139,412,500 Total 280,678.120 Number of Parcels: Vacant 82,065 Total 134,987 ** This is indicated by the following figures: Improved Parcels: Land $141,265,620 Improvements 166,008,357 108 VII. EFFECTS IN RICHMOND UNDER CERTAIN ASSUMED CONDITIONS* Note has already been madef of the decrease in general city taxes which would result in the Borough of Richmond in case the project to reduce the tax rate on buildings were adopted. It remains, however, to examine the probable effects of that step within the limits of the borough. A. TAX RATES The effects of the proposed plan upon the tax rates in the Borough of Richmond is illustrated by the following graph.l RICHMOND RATES UPON THE VARIOUS CLASSES OF PROPERTY UNDER THE PRES- ENT SYSTEM AND UNDER THE PROPOSED PLANS TO UNTAX BUILDINGS iw •' ES a 1 - i § -I z o - S I z - 93X s PRCSCNT SYSTEM ' RATC. OH LAMO RATC on IMPHOVEHEHTS OHB- OMC-HUMDaEOTH RATE ON LAND * The most important condition is that assessed values would remain constant. Cf. tupra, p. l8. t Supra, pp. 22-23. j The statistics upon which this graph is based are presented in detail in the table on p. 21. 109 B. DISTRIBUTION OF THE BURDEN AMONG THE ELEMENTS IN THE TAX BASE. The effects which may be expected upon the burdens of taxation thrown upon the various elements in the tax base, in case the proposed plans to untax buildings were adopted, are made clear by the accom- panying graph : RICHMOND DISTRIBUTION OF TAXES AMONG THE ELEMENTS OF THE TAX BASE UNDER THE PRESENT SYSTEM AND UNDER THE PROPOSED PLANS TO UNTAX BUILDINGS PRESENT SYSTEM (a) LAND $787.4-54-. 87 IMPROVEIVIENTS $720,011.52 RATE ON IMPROVEMENTS ONE-HALF RATE ON LAND (a) LAND ^981.307.92 IMPROVEMENTS $448,630.79 RATE ON IMPROVEMENTS ONE ONE-HUNDREDTH RATE ON LAND (W (a) LAND $I,Z95,Z70.97 (a) PERSONAL PROPERTY $7A.2I0.'E3 Ih) IMPROVEIVIENTS $ 11.843.34. C. EFFECTS IN THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT SECTIONS OF THE BOROUGH The wards are used in Richmond as sub-divisions for assessment purposes. Their boundaries are shown on the accompanying map. The effects of the proposed plans to untax buildings upon the amounts payable as taxes in the various wards may be ascertained from an inspection of the ratios given in the following table: 110 B A y ^OROUG/y RICHMOND 111 Assessed Values and Ratios in the Various Assessment Sections of the Borough OF Richmond (Standard Composite Ratio: 89.51:60.49) Assessed Values Taxes Payable Improve- Land Ratios ments Ward 1 $12,415,460 $11,459,630 52.1:47.9 Decreased Ward 2 7,049,440 8,819,005 44.4:55.6 Decreased Wards 8,251,483 7,895,842 51.1:48.9 Decreased Ward 4 5,106,155 7,815,680 39.5:60.5 Stationary Wards 3,864,835 4,258,951 47.8:52.2 Decreased It will be seen that the proportion of building value is greater than that in the standard composite ratio in all cases except that of Ward Four, where it is substantially identical with it. This means a decrease in taxes for all the wards except Ward Four, where they will remain stationary. The amounts of the increases and decreases in the levies on the real estate of the various wards are shown in the following table : Tax Levies Upon the Real Estate (a) in the Various Assessment Sections of THE Borough of Richmond, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Levies Increases and Decreases Present System Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One- Hundredth Rate on ImprovementB One-Half Rate on Improvements One One- Hundredth Ward I: Land $216,631.70 $269,961.38 $356,333.76 Improvements 234,700.61 146,239.22 3,859.97 —$35,131.71 $451,332.31 $416,200.60 $360,193.73 —$91,138.58 Ward 2: Land $166,713.59 $207,754.59 $274,224.31 Improvements 133,261.91 83,033.94 2,191.67 —9.186.97 $299,975.50 $290,788.53 $276,413.98 —33,559.52 Ward 3: Land $149,262.21 $186,007.09 $245,518.84 Improvements 155,985.21 97,192.57 2.565.39 — 22.047.7* $305,247.42 $283,199.66 $248,084.23 —57.103.19 Ward 4: Land $147,746.83 $184,118.66 $243,026 . 22 Improvements 96,526.24 60,144.38 1,587.50 —10.03 $244,273.07 $244,263.04 $244,613.72 (b) +340.65 Ward 5: Land $80,510.78 $100,330.66 $132,430.80 Improvements 73,060.45 45,523.12 1.201.58 —7,717.45 $153,571.23 $145,853.78 $133,632.38 —19.938.85 All Wards: Land $760,865.11 $948,172.39 $1,251,533.94 Improvements 693,534.43 432,133.23 11.406.10 —74,093.92 $1,454,399.54 $1,380,305.62 $1,262,940.04 —191,459. 59 (a) Not including the "Real Estate of Corporations." (b) The relationship between building and land in Ward Four (39.516:60.484) is almost identical with the standard composite ratio (39.51:60.49). Owing to the fact that the tax rates are carried out only to the fifth decimal point the irregularity develops of a decrease in case the rate on improvements is halved and an increase in case the rate is made one one-hundredth of the rate on buildings. The amounts ar« negligible, however. 112 It will be seen that the decreases which occur so regularly are re- latively slight in amount, the largest, under the plan to halve the tax rate on buildings, being $35,131.71 in Ward One. I). EFFECTS IN SELECTED SECTIONS OF THE BOROUGH (1). Sample District from Ward One Increased 3 Decreased 112 115 In. Ward One of the Borough of Richmond the value of the vacant lands is less than one-third of the total land value ($3,352,543 as com- pared with $1,459,630). The value of the improvements, however, is about one-third greater than the value of the lots on which they stand, (improvements, $12,415,460, improved land, $8,107,087). It will be readily seen that the typical parcel in this ward would receive a sub- stantial reduction under the proposed plans to untax buildings. Single-family houses are the predominant type of improvement, constituting, as is shown by the following table, nearly sixty per cent. of the total value : Classification of Buildings in Ward One, Borough of Richmond Number Percentage Single-family houses 3,095 59 Two-f amUy houses 914 17 Tenements . 448 Miscellaneous buildings 810 15 5,267 100 The sample from this ward consists of 115 parcels of an average value of $3,140. In every case except three the adoption of the plan to untax buildings would cause a decrease in taxes. The average value of the three parcels whose taxes would be increased is $2,033, which is considerably below the value of the average of all the parcels. The assessed value of the parcels in the sample arranged accord- ing to the effect of the adoption of the plan to untax buildings are given in the following table : Assessed Values of Parcels in Sample District from Ward One, Borough of Richmond Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $1,950 $4,150 $6,100 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 254,850 100,145 354,995 Total $256,800 $104,295 $361,095 113 By applying the tax rates to the foregoing values the results pre- sented in the following table are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample District from Ward One, Borough of Richmond, Under the Present System and Under THE Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Present System Rate on Improvements One-Half Geo UP A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements Land Total: Improvements Land Levy Levy $36.86 78.45 $22.97 97.76 -$13.89 -1-19.31 $0.61 129.04 $115.31 $4,817.66 1,893.13 $120.73 $3,001.83 2,359.18 -|-$5.42 -$1,815,83 -1-466 . 05 $129.65 $79.23 3,113.98 $6,710.79 $4,854.52 1,971.58 $3,024.80 2,456.94 -$1,349.78 -$1,829.72 -i-485.36 $3,193.21 $79.84 3,243.02 $5,481.74 -$1,344. $3,322.86 Increase or Decrease -$36.25 -1-50.59 -$4,738.43 -1-1,220.85 -83,517.58 -$4,774.68 -1-1,271.44 The adoption of the half-rate plan would mean a net reduction in the taxes on these parcels of $1,344.36, or $11.69 per parcel. The total reduction in the taxes on the houses is $1,829.72. This repre- sents the maximum available from this source for the reduction of rents. It amounts to $15.91 per parcel. The increase in the tax on land would be $485.36. Capitalized* this increase amounts to $9,707.20, which may be accepted as the proba- ble depreciation in selling value. This would mean a depreciation of $84.41 per parcel.f (2). Sample District from Ward Tzvo Increase Decrease 2 103 105 In Ward Two, Borough of Richmond, as in Ward One, the vacant land does not form a particularly large share of the total land value, being less than one-third ($2,545,005 as compared with $8,819,005). Here also the improvements are valued at a considerably larger sum than the plots on which they stand, (improvements, $7,049,440, im- proved land, $6,274,000). * Interest rate, five per cent. t The details for this section are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 243-245. 114 Almost all the buildings in this ward are single-family houses. The classification follows : Classification of Buildings in Ward Two, Borough of Richmond Ntimber Percentage Single- family houses. . . . Two-family houses Miscellaneous buildings. 2,245 77 346 12 337 11 2,928 100 The sample from Ward Two consists of 105 parcels, with an average value of $4,461. In the case of every one of these parcels except two the adoption of the plans to untax buildings would cause a decrease in taxes. These two parcels have an average value of $8,000. The assessed values, arranged in the usual fashion, are as follows: Assessed Values of Parcels in Sample from Ward Two, Borough of Richmond Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased. $5,300 $10,700 $16,000 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased . Total. 296,850 155,550 452,400 $302,150 $166,250 $468,400 Applying the tax rates to the foregoing values the results pre- sented in the following table are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample from Ward Two, Borough of Richmond, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Levy Increase or Decrease Levy Increase or Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land $100.19 202.27 $62.43 252.07 —$.37.76 +49.80 $1.65 332.71 —$98.54 +130.44 Gkoup B: $302.46 $314.50 + $12.04 $334.36 + $31.90 Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements Land $5,611.62 2,940.50 $3,496.54 3,664.38 —$2,115.08 +723.88 $92.29 4,836.78 —$5,519.33 +1,896.28 Total: Improvements Land $8,552.12 $7,160.92 -$1,391.20 $4,929.07 —$3,623.05 $5,711.81 $3,558.97 —$2,152.84 $93.94 —$5,617.87 3,142.77 3,916.45 +773.68 5,169.49 +2,026.72 $8,854 . 58 The net reduction buildings would be $1 in taxes under the plan to halve the tax rates on ,379.16, or $13.13 per parcel. The reduction in 115 taxes on l)uildiiigs alone would be $2,152.84. This represents the maximum available from this source for the reduction of rents. It amounts to $20.50 per parcel. The increase in the tax on land would be $773.68. Since the net annual returns to the owners of this land would be decreased by this amount the selling value of the land might be expected to decrease. Capitalizing this decrease* the sum of $15,473.60 is obtained as the decrease in the selHng value of the parcels. This amounts to $147.37 per parcel.f (3). Sample District from Ward Three Increase 3 Decrease 102 105 Ward Three, Borough of Richmond is in all essentials similar to the two wards just described. The value of the vacant lots is approximately one-third of the total land value ($2,378,320 as compared with $7,895,842). The value of improvements again exceeds the value of the plots on which they stand by a considerable margin ($8,251,483 as compared with $5,517,552). Here again single-family houses predominate. The classification of the buildings follows : Classification of Buildings in Ward Three, Borough of Richmond Number Percentage Single-family houses 3,542 77 Two-family houses 169 4 Miscellaneous 899 19 4,610 100 The sample consists of 105 parcels, the average value of which is $3,380. In only three cases out of the 105 would taxes be increased under the plan to untax buildings. The average value of these three parcels is $4,066, which is somewhat above the average value of all the parcels. The assessed values, grouped in the usual fashion, are as follows : Assessed Values of Parcels in Sample from Ward Three, Borough of Richmond ___^ Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $3,800 $8,400 $12,200 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 231,855 110,800 342,655 Total $235,655 $119,200 $354,855 • Interest rate, five per cent. t The details for this parcel are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 246-247. 116 When the tax rates are applied to these values the results pre- sented in the following table are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample from Ward Three, OF Richmond, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Borough Present System Levy Rate on Improvementa One-Half Levy Increase or Decrease Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Levy Increase or Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements Land Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements ... Land Total: Improvements Land 1230.62 -$27.07 +39.09 $242.64 $1.18 261.20 $262.38 —$70.65 + 102.41 + $31.76 $4,382.96 2,094.55 $2,730.97 2,610.18 —$1,651.99 +515.63 $72.08 3.445.29 —$4,310.88 +1,350.74 $6,477.51 $5,341.15 —$1,136.36 $3,517.37 —$2,960.14 $4,454.79 2,253.34 $2,775.73 2,808.06 —$1,679.06 +554.72 $73.26 3,706.49 —$4,381.53 +1,463.15 The adoption of the plan to halve the taxes on buildings would result in a net decrease in the tax on parcels in the sample of $1,124.34, or $10.71 per parcel. The decrease in the tax on buildings alone would be $1,679.06, or $15.99 per house, which figures represent the largest amounts available for reductions in rents from this source. The increase in the tax on land amounts to $554.72. Capitalized this sum gives $11,094.40, or $105.66 per plot. These amounts represent the proba- ble decrease in the selling value of the plots.f (4). Sample District from Ward Four Increase 2 Decrease 39 41 In Ward Four vacant land forms a somewhat higher percentage of the total land value than was the case in the wards thus far con- sidered. Here nearly fifty per cent of the total land value consists of vacant lands, ($3,722,170 as compared with $7,815,680). Here again, however, improvements exceed in value the plots on which they stand, ($5,106,155 as compared with $4,093,510). The buildings in this ward are almost entirely single-family houses, the classification follows : * Interest rate, five per cent. t Details for this property are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, 117 Classification of Buildings in Ward Four, Borough of Richmond Number Percentage Single-family houses Tenements Miscellaneous buildings . 3,011 78 128 3 749 19 100 The sample from this ward consists of 41 parcels whose average value is 3657. In case of 39 out of the 41 parcels the tax would be decreased by the adoption of the plan to untax buildings. The average value of the two parcels whose taxes would be increased is $5,750, which is considerably above the value of the average of all. The assessed values of the parcels in the sample section arranged in the usual fashion, are as follows : Assessed Values of Parcels in Sample from Ward Four, Borough of Richmond Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased. $4,000 $7,500 $11,500 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased . Total. 100,000 $104,000 38,450 138,450 $45,950 $149,950 Applying the tax rates to the above values, the results presented in the following table are obtained : Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample from Ward Four, Borough OF Richmond, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present System Rate on Improvements One-Half Rate on Improvements One One-Hundredth Increase or Increase or Levy Levy Decrease Levy Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements $75.62 $47.12 —$28.50 $1.24 —$74.38 Land 141.78 176.68 4-34.90 233.21 -1-91.43 $217.40 $223.80 -|-$6.40 $234.45 -f$17.05 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements $1,890.39 $1,177.88 —$712.51 $31.09 —$1,859.30 Land 726.85 905.79 -hl7S,94 1,195.59 4-468.74 Total: Improvements. Land $2,083.67 —$533.57 $1,966.01 $1,225.00 —$741.01 868.63 1,082.47 4-213.84 $32.33 1,428.80 -$1,390.56 -$1,933.68 4-560.17 $2,307.47 $1,461.13 It will be noted that the net reduction in taxes on the parcels in the sample, upon the adoption of the half-rate plan, would be $527.17, 118 or $12.86 per parcel. The reduction in the taxes on buildings alone would be $741.01, or $18.08 per house. These figures represent the greatest reductions in rents which can be hoped for from this direction. The increase in the tax on land amounts to $213.84. CapitaHzed,* this amounts to $4,276.80, which is the probable reduction in the selling value of the land. The probable reduction per lot is $104.31.t (5). Sample District from Ward Five Increase 3 Decrease 119 122 The situation in Ward Five is in no respect unusual when com- pared with that in other Richmond wards. Considerably less than one-half the total land value is made up of vacant lots ($1,735,886 as compared with $4,258,951). The value of the improvements once more exceeds by a substantial amount the value of the plots on which the buildings stand ($3,864,835 as compared with $2,523,065). Single-family dwellings form the chief type of building. Thd table classifying the buildings follows : Classification of Buildings in Ward Five, Borough of Richmond Number Percentage Single-family houses 2,326 68 Miscellaneous 1,101 32 3,427 100 The sample from Ward Five consists of 122 parcels, whose average value is $2,950. In only three cases would taxes be increased under the proposed plan to untax buildings. The average value of these three parcels is $2,233, which, as was the case in Ward One, is some- what lower than the value of the average parcel. The assessed values, arranged in the usual fashion, are as follows: Assessed Values of Parcels in Sample from Ward Five, Borough of Richmond Improvements Land Total Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased $2,175 $3,525 $5,700 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased 241,600 111,650 353,250 Total $243,775 $115,175 $358,950 Applying the tax rates to the preceding values, the following results are obtained : * Interest rate, five per cent. t Details for this sample are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, p. 251. 119 Taxes Payable by Owners of Parcels in Sample from Ward Five, Borough OF Richmond, Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Untax Buildings Present Rate on Improvements Rate on Improvements System One-Half One One-Hundredth Increase or Increase or Levy Levy Decrease Levy Decrease Group A: Parcels whose taxes would be increased: Improvements $41.12 $25.62 — $15.50 $0. 68 —$40.44 Land 66.64 83.04 + 16.40 109. 61 -t-42.97 Group B: Parcels whose taxes would be decreased: Improvements Land Total: Improvements Land $107.76 $4,567.18 $2,845.76 —$1,721.42 2,210.62 2,630.21 -|-519.59 $110.29 $75.11 —$4,492.07 3,471.72 +1,361.10 $6,677.80 $5,475.97 —$1,201.83 $3,546.83 —$3,130.97 $4,608.30 $2,871.38 —$1,736.92 $75.79 —$4,532.51 2,177.26 2,713.25 +535.99 3,581.33 +1,404.07 -$1,200.93 The total net reduction in the taxes on the parcels in this sample, under the plan to halve the tax rate on buildings would be $1,200.93, or $9.84 per parcel. The total reduction on buildings alone amounts to $1,736.92, or $14.24 per house. The increased burden of the owners of lots would be $535.99 annually, or $4.39 per plot. Capitalized* this would mean a decrease of $87.80 in the selling value of the average lot.t E. SUMMARY It is in spite of the presence of a large quantity of vacant land$ that the Borough of Richmond as a whole would receive a reduction in taxes under the plan to reduce the tax rate on buildings. With the vacant land eliminated the land value of the borough would be $26,515,184. The value of the improvements in the borough is $36,687,373. This sum forms a very high ratio with the assessed value of improved lands — approximately 58 :42. When it is recalled that the standard composite ratio for Richmond is 39.51 :60.49, there is no cause for wonder over the predominance of decreases among the parcels in the various sample sections. In two of the wards of Richmond the samples show that the parcels whose taxes would be increased by the adoption of the plan are less valuable than the average while the samples from the remaining three wards show the opposite condition. * Interest rate, five per cent. t Details for this sample are given in an appendix. Cf. infra, pp. 252-254. JThe exact figures for 1914 are: Assessed values of Land: Vacant $13,733,924 Total 40,249,1Q8 Number of Parcels: Vacant 19.092 Total 34,245 120 VOL VARIOUS DISTURBING FACTORS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT The foregoing analysis has been made under certain very definite pre-suppositions. Conditions have been assumed tO be static vs^here they are undoubtedly dynamic. Shrewd' guesses as to the degree and direction of the changes which are to be expected may be made by those familiar with real estate conditions in the city, but after all they would be merely guesses. It was thought best to present the material under the given assumptions and to allow each individual to modify it in accordance with his own opinions as to what may be expected to happen. However, it is possible to outline how various kinds of changes which may occur would modify the forecasts of probable efifects set forth in detail in the preceding pages and in this section an attempt will be made to do this briefly. It will be recalled, in the first place, that the tax rates were calcu- lated on t*he assumption that the assessed values would remain constant. Even though, the tax rate on land would be increased considerably, the assessed values of the land, according to the calculations, would remain exactly the same. Yet, if the selling price of land, which is the standard for assessments, rests upon the annual net return from the land and if the tax on land cannot be shifted* to the tenant, the reduced net annual return due to the increased taxes will certainly be reflected in a dimin- ished selling value of the land and, consequently, in a smaller assessed value. It is seen, therefore, that in the attempt to make the problem simple, an increase in land values has in reality been already assumed — an increase equal in amount to the capitaHzation of the new burden on land. This element must now be taken into account. In Manhattan this new burden, if the half-rate plan is adopted, is calculated at $13,516,- 767.21.t To raise the given amounts at the given rates, taking into account the depreciation in values under the heavier rate, assumes that in Manhattan land values must increase enough to counterbalance a de- preciation of $270,335,344$ or nearly eight and one-half per cent. In other words, if the statements made in the preceding sections are to hold strictly true, the income from the land on Manhattan must increase by a sum large enough when capitalized to equal $270,335,344. What the * Cf. infra, p. 124 et seq. fThis is under the assumption that the tax is imposed suddenly and that land value is not given an opportunity to slip from the rolls through a process of discounting the anticipated burden. t $13,516,767.21, capitalized. Interest rate, five per cent. 121 prospects are for such an increase in Manhattan land values must be left to those who are familiar with the local situation. Another assumption involved has been that the change itself would not set loose forces which would increase land values. But some of the supporters of the plan find in it a cause for increased values which, they believe, would be of considerable importance. If the tax on buildings were reduced, they argue, building activity and general economic pros- perity would be so stimulated that an increase in land values would result which would probably equal any depreciation which might be expected because of the increased burden on the land. Since there is no way of measuring the stimulus referred to, or its effect upon land values, little can be said of the degree of importance which the argument deserves. It may be remarked, however, that the remission of certain charges which have formerly been paid by buildings, may under certain conditions be expected to stimulate the production of those articles for which the sums, thus released, would be spent. One of these articles for which the demand would be stimulated from this source would doubt- less be buildings. But there would also be others and what they would be depends upon the desires and spending habits of the various indi- viduals whose taxes would be decreased. On the other hand there must be taken into account a possible reduction in the purchasing power* of those who are called upon to pay higher taxes on the land. On the whole it would seem very rash to assume that all which might be taken from the land owner in increased taxes would return to him in increased net returns from his lands. Probably the stimulus would return to him only a small fraction of the amount by which his taxes would be increased. If for any reason there is not an improvement in the real estate situation at least equal in degree to that specified above, there will be a variety of interesting effects. In the first place diminished land values, due to the discounting of the heavier rate on land, would decrease the size of the total tax base. Under the provisions of the proposed bill, if the budget is not to be decreased, the effect of this would be to raise the rates of taxation on all the elements in the tax base. Land would be taxed at a slightly heavier rate but because of the discounting process would pay a somewhat smaller amount as taxes than under the condi- tions assumed in the early sections. Whatever is cut from the burden on land would fall to the share of the other elements in the tax base. The rate on buildings would be greater, and the prospective benefits in the way of lower rents and decreased carrying charges thereby dimin- ished. The rate on personal property and special franchises would also be increased with results which can be only a matter for con- jecture. Finally, the calculations have been made as though no changes were to take place during the period in which the plan was being put * At least a temporary reduction. 122 into operation. The proposed reduction would be made gradually, ten per cent, per year, and this must be kept in mind in considering the possibilities in regard both to the discounting of the changes and to the increases in land values. To summarize, the effects as outlined in detail in this report pre- suppose a moderate increase in the yield from land. If this improve- ment does not materialize, the new burden upon real estate will be somewhat less than indicated while the reductions in the taxes on build- ings and the prospective decreases in rents will also be slightly less. That is, whatever less of evil may accrue to the landowner, that much more of good will be kept from the tenant. If there should be a greater improvement in the land values than that indicated, the transition would be made correspondingly easier for the land owners. And, last of all, proper allowance must be made in interpreting the data for the fact that the plan proposes a gradual reduction stretching over a period of years, rather than a sudden one, as is assumed in the analysis. 123 IX. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE FOREGOING DATA FOR CERTAIN ECONOMIC CLASSES IN THE COMMUNITY A. INTRODUCTORY (1). The Necessity of Considering the Incidence of the Tax Most of the statements which have been made thus far in regard to increased or decreased taxes 'have referred only fo the amounts which the owners of the properties in question would be called up6n to pay in taxes under the proposed plans. .They have been of interest directly to the owji£tgk,of real estate. They shed li^ht on the question of the effects of the proposed plan upon the tax bills of the owners of real property. But as is often the case, the less immediate effects are here the more important ones and none of these has thus far been taken into account. That ope individual pays a greater or smaller tax bill to the city than he did before may or may not be of significance. Everything depends on whether or not the tax is shifted. The importance of the change cannot be measured unless it is known whether the ^payer of the tax is the bearer also. If the beardr is some oth^r person than the payer, he must be 'found, and the amount of his new burden calculated if the truly important effects of the chSnge are to be grasped. It means little to the landlord to have his taxefs increased if he cin pass the in- crease along to the tenant in higher rents, but the change in this case would mean as much to the tefiant as though he paid the tax directly. It is evident that. there can be no intelligent discussion of the effects of the change which does not take into consideration the incidence of the tax. (2). The Incidence of the Real Estate Tax There is perhaps no principle of economics upon which there is more unanimous agreement than that which governs^ the return to land. It is generally recognized that of ' t4ie amount which can .be "made" through the utilization of a piece of improved real estate, ther^ is a part which is properly a return on that portion of the property which can be removed and replaced, sold off "and restored. In the second place there is part which fs properly a return upon the' advantage^ which that par- ticular plot has for the economic purposes of the community as compared with other plots under the general economic conditions then prevailing. 124 This second part of the income from real estate is capitalized into what is known as site value and comprises almost the sole element in the value of city larid.;^ The supply of Sites available for utilization is relatively much more determined and fixed than the supply of capital to construct the improve- ments which is the source of the first part of the income from real e'state. The number of available sites will certainly not be decreased if the financial return is diminished.f The supply of capital to construct buildings or other such improvements upon the sites is quickly affected in case a diminution in the return below that which can be obtained if the capital is invested in some other direction. Buildings wear out and must be constantly repaired and replaced. Nothing is-more simple than to refrain from re-investing in an unprofitable venture. , To secure the houses and improvements the community must, in^ the long run, pay those who are in a position to supply the capital needed for building houses the same return on their funds as they could obtain elsewhere. In the case of the owner of land the situation is different. His property consists of the right to collect periodically for tlie use of his site a sum which represents the advantage which his- site has over other available sites. Out of this sum he must^pay expenses, chiefly taxes. • The fe- mainder, cap^italized, constitutes the selling value of the land.| The dividing line between the t\^o kinds of real-estate income is not commonly observed in the accounts of real estate men and the import- ance of the distribution' is often underrated". It is, of course,' true that most buildings possess considerable permanency an'd that their selling value once built, depends upon a capitalization" of their exp.ected yields. But, nevertheless, the petm anency of a buil dihg and the ne rmanency o^ a site are enough different to justify the" use of-tw'o categories. The dis- tinction is one which can be made without great difficulty, as is shown by the fact that it is considered of prime importance in determining values for assessment purposes. In consequence of the differences between sites and improvements outHned above, important 'conclusions are drawn in regard to the inci- dence of taxes upon them. It' is generally agreed that a charge which is levied upon city land values must be deducted by the land owner from the sum he already receives from his site. He is already, theoretically, *In order to make the site value of the land yavailable for use, the expenditure of capital is ofttimes necessary, as when lots are graded or fiq/d. The return upon a graded or filled lot is determined by the same forces, however, as would be the case if the grading or filling had been unnecessary. The capitalization of that return, therefore, may justly be termed site value. t The capital expended for the purpose of making sites available when the improvements are permanent, such as grading, usually cannot be withdrawn from the land. The normal situation is that the person who makes such an improvement expects it to be of permanent value and makes the expenditure as soon as the project promises a return merely on the outlay with no allowance for replacements. On the other hand, that a decreased return on sites to the individuals owning them would act as a deterrent to the expenditure of capital for the purpose of making available new sites by grading, blasting, ' e'fc, is entirely probable. J This is true only in case the present conditions are expected to continue indefinitely. The capitalized amount is, of course, the sum of the expected annual yields, discounted at the current rate of interest. 125 collecting all he can collect from the tenant — the equivalent of the ad- vantages his site possesses over others under the conditions obtaining. The heavier tax apportioned according to land values, it may be claimed, would affect these conditions. It certainly w^ill not decrease the number of sites. If it has any effect in this direction it will be probably that of increasing the number, through fo xcing lands into u se. The possible relief afforded other subjects of taxation by virtue of the adoption of this land tax, might stimulate to some degree the demand for sites and thus, indirectly, increase ground rents. There is no way of measuring the importance of this element. It is true, of course, that the relief afforded to all the other objects which might otherwise be taxed is exactly equal to the burden put upon land values alone. ^ It follows that land taxes tend to he borne by the payer. There is no shifting. The resting place is with the owner. The incidence of the tax on buildings is different. The new tax is a charge connected with supplying improvements on land to those who desire them. The personwho supplies the improvements is the capital- ist. He can place his capital here or place it elsewhere. To place it here he must be given the same return which he should receive else- where. Placing his capital here involves the payment of a tax charge which can usually be avoided if he places it elsewhere.- The person, therefore, who wishes the improvement on land here must meet this charge in order that this option to the capitalist may be as attractive as the other. ^Taxes on buildings and other improvements which wear out, tend, therefore, to be shifted to the tenant. But, it may be said, the capitalist has already committed himself. He has built houses and agreed to certain terms of payment. The reply to this is that the terms of- the agreement are temporary and the im- provefnents, themselves are temporary. In the case of agreements that a fixed rental be paid for a given period, the tenant will escape the tax during the life of the agreement. Such are merely instances of incidental friction. A more important element of friction, is the other case mentioned. The capitalist has invested his funds in houses. He certainly will at- tempt to raise rents. But can he increase them, under actual conditions? The answer must be indefinite. The -^weapon of the capitalist is the re- fusal to reinvest in the same direction. Rarely can he withdi-aw his capital when in th'e form of a building. ^ If the members of the community cannot or will not pay larger sums for ;-ent, there will be no general immediate increase in rents equal in amount to the added tax. Some landlords will get higher rents. Per- haps all will get somewhat higher ones. The man who pays $40 for a four room apartment, may refuse to pay $50 for the same accommoda- tions. He may move to a three room apartment and continue to pay $40. Perhaps some other individual v^ho before rented a five room apartment will now occupy the four rooms. But in this movement into 126 smaller apartments there would be a decrease in the demand for the larger ones which would result in a reaction. Owners of such apart- ments might reason that part of a loaf were better than none and rent their rooms at a price which would not bring a fair return on their investment. This could not be a permanent situation, however, for the weapon of the landlord presently becomes effective. Under those cir- cumstances he will not reinvest his money in the same direction. Enough has been said to show that the answer to this. question depends upon what is known as the "elasticity of demand" for accommodations, vis.j the variation in the demand in response to the changes in price. In a city where a large proportion of the accommodations are rented, this elasticity might be expected to be greater than where the houses are owned by the occupants. People would more readily move when the rents were increased or decreased. This results in throwing a larger share of the burden upon the shoulders of the landlord. Suppose a case where, because of an increase in t-lie tax on buildings,, the landlords at- tempt to increase the rent. In a cityof^nants this question presents itself: Shall a smaller apartment be taken or shall a larger part of the income be spent for house room? The tenant considers this question without reference to the interests of the landlord. His answer will not be influenced by the fact that to take the smaller apartment may leave the larger one vacant with a resulting loss. On the other hand, in the city of home-owners, the occupier is also the landlord. The increased tax presents to him a different problem. If he is not to pay a larger amount of his income for hiring accommodations he must negotiate a trade or sale. His interest as a landlord may affect his action as a tenant. It would seem that in the city of owners many more individuals would decide to pay more for their living accommodations than in the city 'of tenants. That is, the variation in price would result in less change in demand. In the city of tenants, there would be more elas- ticity. A similar situation develops in the case of a decrease in the tax on buildings. The renter in the city of tenants would be relatively quick to move into a larger apartment. The owner of a home would take action more slowly. He might add a room to his home, sell it or trade it for another, but this would probably be done much less often than the corresponding action in the city of tenants. It is perhaps sufficiently evident that a decrease in the tax on build- ings will tend to be pagsed along to the tenants and that an increase will have the same tendency. That is, whereas the tax~on land tended to remain where placed and be borne by the payer, the tax on buildings tends to be shifted and be borne by the tenant in the form of a pa"rt of the rental charge. There are various disturbing elements in the situa- tion which obstruct the operation of these principles. One of the most, important of these is the investments in buildings already erected. The more elastic the demand for building accommodations in a given city, the more disadvantageous to the owners of real estate is a change in 127 the tax on buildings likely to be. In a city where the percentage of tenants is large, the elasticity of this demand will be relatively large. But in spite of the elements of friction in the situation, the general prin- ciple still holds that a t ax on land is ordinarily borne by the <^wnen and a 1;^x^on improvements by the^tenarjt. B. SIGNIFICANCE FOR REAL ESTATE OWNERS Before proceeding further it may be well to present such statistics as are available concerning the relative importance of the classes whose interests are to be discu3sed. Both the tenement house department and the tax department gather statistics which are of interest in this con- nection. The data from the report of the latter is more comprehensive, including in its classification all the buildings in the city. A summary from the 1914 report is presented herewith : Classification of Buildings in the Boroughs of the City of New York Man- The Rich- hattan Bronx Brooklyn Queens mond Total Class 1: 25,212 ' 2,681 39,421 ' 2,155 15,380/ 13,549 8,154 , . 9,617 •70 3,773 62,080 49,505 45,956 209 14,630 35,663 13,336 4,876 231 f 8,419 14,219" - 1,519 634 82 3,666 150 723 Class 2: Class 3: Tenements without elevators .... Class 4: Hotels and elevator apartment 100,504 2 747 Class 5: Miscellaneous buildings'. 45,868 Total 84,849 35,163 172,380 62,525 20,120 375,037 The information given in the above table-is well supplemented by the following data from the records of the tenement house department : Apartments and Apartment Buildings in the BoiouGHS of the City of New York (a) Buildings Apartments Manhattan 40,905 532,509 Bronx 9,873 122,243 Brooklyn 46,669 259,521 Queens 5,256 25,375 Richmond 411 1,661 Total 103,114 941,309 (a) Data for June 30, 1915. It will be noted that the sum of classes three and four of the first table is approximately equal to the total number of apartment build- 128 ings as given in second table*. Many houses as well as mapy apartments accommodate more than one family, but no information is available as to the comparative extent of this condition. Practically all of the apart- ments a're, of course, rented, while a large number of the houses are occupied by the owners. Here again exact information is lacking. An inspection of the figures, incomplete as they are, shows very clearly, however, that the class of persons who own the premises which they occupy is very small indeed as compared with those who rent. The total number of single-family houses is 150,723 and of two-family houses 75,195. Multiplying the latter figure by two and adding it to the former, 301,113 is obtained. Assuming that every house or part of a house is owned by the occupier, which is of course not true, the figures indicate that still over three-fourths of the families of the city live in apartments. In Manhattan, by this test, less than six per cent, of the famiHes live in their own houses. (1). Owners who Occupy their own Property The case of the owners of real estate who occupy their own prop- erty will first be discussed. Although statistics indicate that the number in this class is relatively small, particularly in Manhattan, it is never- theless a class of considerable importance and one which from a social point of view it seems desirable to encourage. What does the foregoing analysis mean for the home-owner? The answer cannot be given in a word, for the effects vary in the different sections of the city. Some of the finest residence parcels in Manhattan would receive decreases in taxes, but the owner of the average single-family house would be called upon to pay a larger amount under the plan. On the other hand, the home-owners in the outlying boroughs would very generally receive considerable decreases. An explanation which may be made of this is that the single family dwelling is an improper improvement in Manhat- tan ; that the land in general is suited to a more intensive use and that the man who builds a single family dwelling on the Island must be pre- pared to assume the responsibiHties and penalties connected with using a plot for a lower purpose than that for which it is adapted. But a num- ber of things may be said in reply to such a contention. First, it is a question whether a policy should be adopted which places a heavier bur- den upon those who, even though the expense for land is greater, still find a residence in Manhattan desirable. In the next place, in many ctises the high proportion of land value is due to shifts in the suitable use to which the land may be put. Many sections are filled with old houses which it would be foolish to replace with new because business buildings and apartments are creeping in and reduce the attractiveness * The definition of "tenement" followed by the tenement house department is that of a structure accommodating three families or more, who live independently of one another, and whose cooking is done on the premises. This, of course, excludes hotels. 129 of the sites for single-family dwellings. But, it may be said, this new use is a higher use bringing with it higher land values. Although the statement may be true in general, nevertheless the entire areas of these districts cannot be sold at any one time for this new use, the owners sometimes finding it necessary to carry the plots a long time, and, the change and its consequent increase in selling value may have been expected and paid for beforehand, when the land was bought. But whatever may be thought of the desirability of the effects there is no doubt as to what they will be upon the magnitude of the taxes payable by the owners of the single-family dwellings in Manhattan. Their net burden will in general be substantially increased. Another point of interest developed in the course of the investiga- tion into the effects upon the owners of residence parcels in Manhattan. In this borough it was very generally the case that, while the bulk of the houses would be charged with heavier taxes, there would be within each group a number which would receive reductions. An examination of these parcels showed that in practically every case they were the more expensive parcels of the sample. That is, in Manhattan, the adop- tion of the plan would mean virtually a regressive tax among the home owners. In the other boroughs, strangely enough, this condition either does not obtain at all or only to a very limited extent. The discussion thus far has dealt with the net taxes payable. Of more significance is the question of the increases and decreases upon the two elements in the value of the parcel — land and buildings. The net taxes might remain exactly the same and the adoption of the plan still have grave effects upon the interests of the owners of property. Thus the mere fact that their net taxes would be reduced does not neces- sarily mean that the owners of residences in the outlying boroughs would receive a net benefit through the adoption of the plan. The plan proposes to take the tax off buildings and put it on the land. If the shifting takes place in the manner indicated above* the owner will find that his house will not sell for more because of its lowered tax while his land will sell for less because of its increased tax. Whether he will benefit in the end depends upon the relative importance of his gain as a tax-payer and his loss as a land-owner. Of course, if the adoption of the plan should itself raise land values, his loss as an owner of land would be diminished. The owner of a Manhattan residence would lose in both directions, both as a tax-payer and as a land-owner. The approximate importance of the plan to untax buildings as a depressing influence upon land values may be judged from the following figures. The table shows the value of improved real estate in the various boroughs, the present taxes chargeable to this part of the tax base and the increased burden which the land would be called upon to carry if the half-rate plan were adopted all at once: = Supra, p. 124, et seq. 130 Levies Upon Improved Land in the Various Boroughs Under the Present System and Under the Proposed Plans to Halve the Rate on Buildings Assessed Levy Increase Value . ■ . , • > Boroughs of Rate on Improved Present Improvements Amount Percentage Lands Plan One-Half Manhattan $3,003,267,830 853,333,231 $65,982,098 $12,648,867 24 Bronx 183,026,461 3,224,688 3,998,488 773,800 24 Brooklyn 630,735,712 11,586,364 14,442,208 2,855,844 25 Queens 141,265,565 2,537,963 3,143,300 605,337 24 Richmond 26,515,184 501,240 624,634 123,394 25 It appears that every ov^ner of an improved parcel in Manhattan, for example, must face the prospect, upon the adoption of the half-rate plan, of a diminution in the value of his plot equal to the capitalization of a tw^enty-four per cent, increase in the tax on his plot. However, this percentage, of course, may be lowered somewhat by a process of discounting during the five-year period over which the change wbuld be spread and by forces increasing land values which may be set in mo- tion by the adoption of the plan itself. Assuming an interest rate of five per cent., the prospective depreciation in the value of the improved lots in Manhattan would amount to $252,977,340, approximately eight and one-half per cent. Under the assumption of a six per cent, rate the prospective decrease would be $210,813,607, or approximately seven per cent. It is seen, then, that under the proposed plans owners of property which they themselves occupy would in most of the boroughs pay lower net taxes than at present. This, however, is not true of Manhattan. But as the owners of land these individuals have cause for apprehension in the adoption of the plan which threatens a depreciation in the selling value of the land. If they attempted to sell their land they would probably find the market price lower by a considerable amount than it otherwise would have been. It will be noted that the gain in lowered taxes accrues to the owners in their capacity as users of the property, rather than in their capacity as the owners of the property. That is, as owners of property they, with all other owners, would lose. As users of property they, together with all other users would gain. The reduced tax on buildings could not usually be expected to be capitalized and added to the market value of the parcel. Its benefit would accrue to the user. On the other hand the heavier tax on land would be capitalized and substracted from the selling value of the land. The benefit would accrue to the public treasury and the injury to the owner. The gain or loss of the individual who occupies his own property would, therefore, depend upon whether he gained more in reduced net taxes than he would lose through reduced selling value of his property. Viewed from this standpoint the owner of the single-family dwelling on Manhattan would be particularly hard hit by the adoption of the plan to lower the rate on buildings. 131 (2). Oivners who Rent their Property The effect of the adoption of the proposed plans to untax buildings upon the owners of rented property may be quickly disposed of. In so far as their interest as land owners is concerned, they are at one with the class of owners just discussed, who occupy their own property. But the owner who rents would have finally no compensating factor in the way of a smaller burden of taxation on his building. For, if the analysis is correct, the decreased tax on the buildings will not, in the long run, accrue to the advantage of the owner but rather to the advantage of the tenant. Friction will develop, no doubt, in transmitting the decrease in building taxes to the tenant. In the long run, however, the owner who rents his property may compute as his probable loss merely the capitalization of his increased land tax, modified by several factors. Among these are the amount of the decrease in building taxes which he can hold back from his tenants and whatever amount his larger land tax may be diminished either by the discounting process or by the stimu- lation to land values traceable to the operation of the plan itself. Some light may here be thrown upon the question as to whether the degree of shrinkage in land values would be great enough to endanger real estate as security for mortgage loans. It will be seen from the table presented above* what the probable decreases in land values from this source would be. It would seem that unless the adoption of the plan would so shock the faith of the community in the desirability of real estate investments as to cause a real estate panic, little need be feared by the holders of mortgages which are protected by a margin of value which is at all conservative. It must be remembered that the figures are based upon the 1914 assessments and tax rates. The 1915 rates are considerably higher than those of 1914 and this, of course, increases the prospective depreciation in land values. (3). Oivners of Vacant Land The owners of vacant land would be in the worst position of all if the plan to untax buildings were adopted. The table which follows shows the value of the vacant lots and the increases in the burdens which would be put upon their owners under the proposed plan. Levies Upon Vacant Lots in the Various Boroughs Under the Present System, AND Under the Proposed Plan to Halve the Rate on Buildings Boroughs Assessed Values Present System Levy Rate on Improvements One-Half Increase Levy Amount Percentage Manhattan $158,681,830 $2,817,935 83,486,255 $068,320 24 Bronx 153,089,599 2,697,240 3,344,472 647,232 24 Brooklyn 153,123,447 2,812,816 3,506,128 693,312 25 139,412,555 2,504,672 3,102,069 597,397 24 Richmond 13,733,924 2,596,247 3,235,382 639.135 24 «3,245,396 * Supra, p. 131. 132 It is seen that the decrease in the selHng value of vacant lands, under the assumption of a five per cent, interest rate, might be as much as $64,907,920. If the tax rate be increased, as it has been in 1915, this decrease would be still greater. On the other hand, the process of dis- counting and any increase in land values due to the operation of the plan would be available for reducing the burden. (C). SIGNIFICANCE FOR RENTERS The total decrease in the taxes on rented buildings might be sup- posed to be available for lower rents if the process of shifting worked perfectly. That this 'amount is very substantial can be seen by referring back to the table of tax levies.* Put several important factors must be taken into account at this point. The first is the amount of friction which must be expected in transferring the decrease in the tax on buildings to the tenants. It will be accepted as true that in general the tenants are less well informed and less fully alive to their interests than the landlords. /tThey would not be conversant with the details of the operation of the new plan 'and would have no exact knowledge of the reduction which had been made on the parcels or fractions of a parcel they occupied. Moreover, there would .b'e the usual reluctance to change the status quo and 'the 'difBculties attendant upon a change involving odd sums. Finally, the weapon of the tenant in forcing the landlord to give lower rents, 'that of moving to some other man's house, is not entirely' in his own hands. If .rents w'ere reduced there would be some who 'would prefer to take the reduction in the form of larger and better quarters.' This means that some of the tenants who desired to force lower tfernis from, their landlords would have to wait for new capital to enter the field. While the new buildings were* being constructed the landlords could continue to collect ft considerable portion at least of the sum which thepreticalty belongs to the tenant. This friction would be a force which would operate only temporarily but it would doubtless operate as a very important check upon the immediate benefits to the tenants under the proposed plan. The second factor is of perhaps even greater importance. It is urged by som^ that building takes olace ip the City of New York Jn anticipation oi demand an* beforoAfull. return can be secured^n the investment; that this l)uITamg ^Hn#, indirectly, to the lure oT the unearned increment because own^^of vacant land, in order to preserve titles to increments, are willing to sacrifice a part of it by building before suitable rents can be asked for the building. It is notorious that depre- ciation, funds are seldom provided for the buildings in New York,, de- pendence being placed upon 'the .increase in land values to counter- balance the decrease in building values through wear and tear. The *Suprp, p. 23. 133 question then arises : Would not a tax which increases the burden of land so much as to decrease materially its selling value, operate to dis- courage early building and the dependence upon increasing land values to cover depreciation charges? Would it not make .higher rents neces- sary to care for these demands? Thus it is seen that the operation of the plan may set in motion forces which would mean an ' in crea.se in rents and this increase must be compared with the decreases in the tax oiTlDuildings before an answer can be given as to the exact effect on rents, of the plan to untax buildings. (D). SIGNIFICANCE FOR PROSPECTIVE REAL ESTATE OWNERS The prospective real estate owner may expect little benefit from the proposed plan. It is true that any building he might erect would be taxed at a smaller rate than before but in case he proposes to build for his own use this benefit could be secured by him without himself building, for it is a benefit which ultimately accrues to the user rather than to the owner. If he plans to, build in order to rent, the decreased taxes must ultimately be passed on to the tenant. It is true also that he would probably be able to buy his plot at a lower price, but after he has bought it he will have to part with this supposed advantage through the increased annual charges to which he will be liable because of the higher tax rate. The adoption of the plan, therefore, would seem to involve making the proposition to the prospective buyer apparently more attractive without adding anything to its real attractiveness after all. Except in a few directions the foregoing analysis does not lend itself readily to brief and accurate generalization. The adoption of the proposed plan to untax buildings is seen to promise a great variety of results. In almost every borough there are conditions present which make the effects very different from those in every other borough. In Manhattan, the best developed, and Queens, almost the worst developed of all the boroughs, taxes would be increased by the adoption of the proposed plan. In Manhattan it^a the ino^^dinately high value of the improved land and in Queens th^^^t number of vacant lots which is responsible for the situation, ^i^ predominance of well-improved parcels, mostly single-family dwellings, would win for Brooklyn a very large decrease in taxes. Houses in Manhattan would usually pay higher taxes while those in other boroughs would pay lower ones. In Man- hattan the more expensive parcels in the samples would receive decreases ; in the Bronx, the less expensive ones. Tenements in one portion of Manhattan would pay greater taxes while those in other sections would pay smaller. 134 Two conclusions, however, stand forth very prominently. In the first place, the change promises ultimate benefits of :consid€rable im- portance to all t enants a nd to many of the home-owners in the out-lying boroughs. These benefits, how'ever, may be very slow of realization. Secondly, the o wners of hm d would be charged with the cost of these benefits. The cost, in turn, would also be considerable. Its amount, as well as the modifying factors have been set forth in some detail. What has been presented determines only a few of the variables which should be taken into consideration in reaching a truly scientific decision as to the desirability of the plan. Many of them, unfortunately can be determined only by actually trying the experiment under the conditions here existing. 135 APPENDIX DETAILED INFORMATION CONCERNING THE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PLANS TO UNTAX BUILDINGS UPON THE TAXES PAYABLE BY OWNERS OF PARCELS IN THE VARIOUS SELECTED SECTIONS I. MANHATTAN SKY-SCRAPER SECTION (The district consists of all the buildings south of Chambers Street, ten stories high or more.) {Standard Composite Ratio: 38.34:61.66) BUILDINGS TEN STORIES' IN HEIGHT Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address , * ■ ^ Ratio Improvements Land 15-21 Wall St $175,000 $2,200,000 7:93 8-16 Broad St 1.110,000 4,200,000 21:79 11-23 Broad St 675,000 3,500,000 16:84 64-68 Broad St 170,000 575,000 23:77 16-22 William St 275,000 600.000 31:69 26-28 William St 175,000 400,000 30:70 45-49 William St 125,000 725.000 15:85 7 Pine St 60,000 210,000 22:78 25 Pine St 75,000 225,000 25:75 14 Maiden Lane 65,000 130,000 33:67 93-109 Broadway 825,000 2.575.000 24:76 176-178 Broadway 375,000 1,200,000 24:76 203 Broadway 190,000 810,000 19:81 65-69 Nassau St 100,000 460,000 18:82 93-99 Nassau St 275,000 775,000 26:74 3-9 Beekman St 200.000 750,000 21 :79 119-123 Beekman St 90.000 230,000 28:72 $4,960,000 $19,565,000 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address < * v Ratio Improvements Land 41-45 Broadway $625,000 $750,000 45:55 125-131 Broadway 225,000 150,000 60:40 34-40 Fletcher St 70,000 30,000 70:30 182-184 Front St 85,000 65,000 57:43 11-13 Cliff St 125.000 55,000 70:30 61-65 Cliff St 195.000 80,000 71 :29 69-71 Cliff St 250.000 150,000 63:37 192-194 Greenwich St 85,000 85,000 50 :50 165-167 William St 75.000 100.000 43:57 88-90 Gold St 225,000 100,000 69:31 34-40 Rose St 250,000 120,000 68:32 $2,210,000 $1,685,000 BUILDINGS ELEVEN STORIES IN HEIGHT Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address < ' n Ratio Improvements Land 45-49 Cedar St $335,000 $565,000 37:63 80 Broadway 400,000 2,200,000 15:85 40-42 Wall St 825,000 1,875.000 31:69 46 Pine St 45.000 150.000 23:77 36-38 Park Row 350,000 1,150,000 23:77 $1,955,000 $5,940,000 138 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' ^ ~ 7' Improvements Land n-18 State St $375,000 $450,000 13 17PearTsf WW 475,000 425,000 N. & S. E. Cor. State and Pearl Sts 525,000 675,000 1-9 William St 450,000 420,000 M 66 Wall St 275,000 425,000 tt^fw^-^:::. 365000 235,000 35-39 Maiden Lane 245,000 325,000 18-20 Frankfort St 240,000 185,000 $2,950,000 $3,140,000 Ratio 46:54 53:47 44:56 52:48 39:61 61 :39 43:57 57:43 BUILDINGS TWELVE STORIES IN HEIGHT Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address ' * I 7^ Improvements Land 52-54 Maiden Lane $225,000 $^75,000 63MaidenLane mOOO 90,000 1 Broadwav 700,000 1,300,000 10 12 Broadway 200,000 450.000 2- a Broadway'. 1 1 i 800.000 2,050 000 84 Broadway... 275,000 I'^JS'S^S 174 Broadwav 60,000 365,000 80 BroaS:.::..: mOOO 360,000 198 Broadwav 100.000 325,000 261-fM Broadway 450,000 1,050,000 30-32 Snrs".':: : : : : 210,000 520.000 68-70 Nassau St 65,000 ^25,000 $3,800,000 $9,970,000 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' ' I p Improvements Land 47 West St $140,000 $85,000 23-25 South St::: 400,000 150,000 78-80 Wall St 200,000 300.000 82-88 Wall St 260,000 340,000 50-52 Pine St 200,000 210,000 95-97 Liberty St : . 165,000 235,000 120 122 Liberty St 265,000 179,900 II7-139 L^berTv St: ::::::: 940,000 625,000 122-144 Greenwich St 29.5,000 125.000 276 Greenwich St 65,000 60,000 39-41 Cortlandt St 275,000 300,000 irj^n^'S'^ ::::::::::::::::::: 3X0 mZ 47-«a1den "Lane: 200,000 300,000 51-53 Maiden Lane 250 000 280,000 r^^lm^^^ir :::::::::::: :o§§ iS ?-23-T3f wiiii'am-st: ::::::::: 515,000 435,000 236-242 William St 300,000 150,000 110-116 Nassau St 400,000 450,000 81-83 Fulton St 250,000 180,000 4nO Penrl St 360,000 VU.UUU 9 15 Murray St 360.000 350,000 7i 73 Murray St: : : : : : : ::::::::: 135.000 65,000 .$6,850,000 $5,959,900 Ratio 38:62 37:63 35:65 31:69 28:72 14:86 14:86 22:78 24:76 30:70 23:77 36:64 28:72 22:78 Ratio 62:38 73:27 40:60 43:57 49:51 41:59 60:40 60:40 70:.30 52:48 48:52 43:57 46:54 40:60 47:53 40:60 45:55 54:46 67:33 47:53 58:42 80:20 51:49 74:26 139 BUILDINGS THIRTEEN STORIES IN HEIGHT Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address , ^ , Ratio Improvements Land o^'o^^^"^^ $225,000 $400,000 36:64 27-29 Pine St 225.000 550,000 29:71 ^H^. ?',"^ ?^ 300,000 525,000 36:64 ^^ ,¥^^^" ^^"^ 95,000 180,000 34:66 10-14 Beekman St 260,000 500,000 34-66 53-65 Park Row 450,000 1,500,000 23 -.11 $1,555,000 $3,655,000 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address , ^ , Ratio Improvements Land 79-85 Wall St $225,000 $350,000 39-61 56-58 Pine St 390,000 310,000 56:44 441/' -46 Maiden Lane 310.000 475,000 40-60 20-24 Vesey St 375,000 375,000 50:50 253 Broadway 900,000 1,025,000 47:53 $2,200,000 $2,535,000 BUILDINGS FOURTEEN STORIES IN HEIGHT Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address , '• ^ Ratio Improvements Land 44-48 Cedar St $300,000 $500,000 38:62 135-137 Broadway 350,000 1,250,000 22 :78 $650,000 $1,750,000 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ( * n Ratio Improvements Land 15-17 Beekman St $235,000 $200,000 54:46 Frankfort St. (N. Y. Press) 395,000 245,000 62 :38 90-92 W. Broadway 200,000 100,000 tl .ZZ $830,000 $545,000 BUILDINGS FIFTEEN STORIES IN HEIGHT Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address , ' ^ Ratio Improvements Land 28-30 Nassau St $3,700,000 $6,300,000 2,1 -eZ 35-39 Nas.sau St 775,000 1,575,000 33:67 24-26 Cortlandt St 590,000 1,325,000 31 :69 $5,065,000 $9,200,000 140 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' ■*■ ^ Improvements Land 82-9? Beaver St $500,000 $400,000 68-70 William St 460,000 600.000 216-218 William St 390,000 110,000 Q-17 Dey St 800.000 875,000 9-13 Maiden Lane 340,000 435,000 106-108 Fulton St 245,000 205,000 $2,735,000 $2,625,000 Ratio 56:44 43:57 78:22 48:52 44:56 55:45 BUILDINGS SIXTEEN STORIES IN HEIGHT Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address <■ * ^ Improvements Land 24-^8 Broad "^^t $600,000 $1,250,000 32-36 Broad St: ::::.: 950.000 1,550.000 32-34 Broadway 350,000 600.000 160-164 Broadway 600,000 1-25,000 39-42 Park Row 400,000 1,100,000 71-73 Nassau St.: 420,000 680,000 $3,320,000 $6,305,000 Ratio 22:68 38:62 37:63 35:65 27:73 38.18:61.8 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address f '"' ' ^ Improvements Land 5-11 Broadway $1,750,000 $1,500,000 22-30 Broadway 1.550.000 l-700,000 256-257 Broadway 375,000 550.000 63-65 Beaver St. 450.000 425,000 14-22 Cortlandt St 1,175.000 1'225,000 98-105 William St 960.000 940,000 135-141 William St 300.000 200,000 57-61JohnSt 415,000 260,000 $6,975,000 $6,800,000 Ratio 54:46 48:52 41:49 52:48 48:52 51:49 60-40 62:38 BUILDINGS SEVENTEEN STORIES IN HEIGHT Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address Improvements 126-128 Broadway $425,000 Land $1,375,000 Ratio 24:76 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address Improvements Land 67-69 William St $390,000 $425,000 84-88 William St 675,000 525,000 $950,000 $1,065,000 141 Ratio 48:52 56:44 BUILDINGS EIGHTEEN STORIES' IN HEIGHT Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address , * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 49-51 Broadway $950,000 Sl,900,000 33:67 66-70 Broadway 1,400,000 2,650,000 35:65 86 Broadway 150,000 650,000 19:81 166-172 Broadway 850,000 1,975,000 30:70 $3,350,000 $7,175,000 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address , • * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 26-28 Beaver St $250,000 $150,000 63:37 28-30 Beaver St 355.000 270,000 57:43 59-61 Pearl St 366,500 93,500 80:20 $971,500 $513,500 BUILDINGS NINETEEN STORIES. IN HEIGHT Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address , ' n Ratio Improvements Land 141-147 Broadway $1,100,000 $1,850,000 Z7 M Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address , ' , Ratio Improvements Land 11-13 William St $800,000 $875,000 48:52 27 William St 1,150,000 1,150,000 50:50 154-162 Nassau St 750,000 950,000 44:56 $2,700,000 $2,975,000 BUILDINGS TWENTY STORIES IN HEIGHT Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address , -^ ^ Ratio Improvements Land 72-74 Broadway $355,900 $1,125,000 2476 27-33 Nassau St 1,000,000 1,800,000 36:64 $1,355,000 $2,925,000 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address , * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 46-52 Broad St $1,150,000 $1,100,000 51:49 50-54 William St 640,000 810,000 44:56 15-19 Maiden Lane 600,000 735,000 45:55 68-76 Maiden Lane 550,000 500,000 52:48 $2,940,000 $3,145,000 142 BUILDINGS TWENTY-ONE STORIES IN HEIGHT Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address , * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 100-106 Broadway $700,000 $1,725,000 2971 20 Broad St 1,150,000 1,850,000 38.33:61.67 $1,850,000 $3,575,000 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address , ' ^ Ratio Improvements Land 36-42 Broadway .$2,200,000 $2,100,000 51 :49 67-73 Broadway 1,600,000 2,500,000 39-61 111 Broadway 2,500,000 4,000,000 38.4:61.6 113-119 Broadway 2,200,000 3,200,000 41:59 92-94 Liberty St 500,000 700,000 41:59 $9,000,000 $12,500,000 BUILDINGS TWENTY-TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address > * s Ratio Improvements Land 5-11 Nassau St .$1,100,000 $2,900,000 28:72 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Should Be Decreased Assessed Values Address i ^ ^ Ratio Improvements Land 87-93 West St $1,750,000 $550,000 76:24 BUILDINGS TWENTY-THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address i * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 58-60 Broadway $1,350,000 $1,650,000 45:55 8 Rector St 2,050,000 900.000 69:31 2-6 Spruce St 585,000 765,000 43:57 $3,985,000 $3,315,000 BUILDINGS TWENTY-FIVE STORIES IN HEIGHT Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address i * \ Ratio Improvements Land 218-222 Broadway $550,000 $950,000 Z7 -.6?, 143 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased. Assessed Values Address '- ^ ~^> Improvements Land 37-43 Wall St $1,025,000 $1,300,000 43-49 Exchange PI 1,150,000 750,000 13-21 Park Row 1,265,000 1,365,000 $3,440,000 $3,415,000 BUILDINGS TWENTY-SIX STORIES IN HEIGHT Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' * ^ Improvements Land 60-62 Wall St $1,175,000 $925,000 80 Maiden Lane 2,300,000 1,200,000 $3,475,000 $2,125,000 BUILDINGS THIRTY STORIES IN HEIGHT Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address r * - p Improvements Land 1 Nassau St $2,600,000 $3,200,000 53-57' Liberty' St 950,000 1,000.000 $3,550,000 $4,200,000 BUILDINGS THIRTY-TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address <■ '' ~~ "^ Improvements Land 9 Battery Place $1,725,000 $1,575,000 27-31 Broadway 1,900,000 2.900,000 57-61 Broadway 1,900.000 2,900.000 $5,525,000 $7,375,000 BUILDINGS THIRTY-THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address r ^ -^ Improvements Land 165-167 Broadway $3,700,000 $2,925,000 BUILDINGS FORTY STORIES IN HEIGHT Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' * ^ Improvements Land 149-163 Broadway $3,000,000 $4,000,000 BUILDINGS FIFTY-FOUR STORIES IN HEIGHT Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address '- " ^ 7^ Improvements Land 227-237 Broadway $6,000,000 $2,800,000 144 Ratio 44:56 61:39 48:52 Ratio 56:44 66:34 Ratio 45:55 49:51 Ratio 52:48 40:60 40:60 Ratio 59:41 Ratio 43:57 Ratio 68:32 UPPER EAST SIDE TENEMENT SECTION (Standard Composite Ratio: 88.34:61.66) Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address 1968 Second Ave. 1990 Second Ave. Improvements Land $8,500 $14,000 6,000 10,000 $14,500 $24,000 Ratio 38:62 37:63 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' * \ Ratio Improvements Land 1933-35 First Ave $29,500 $22,500 57:43 1937-39 First Ave 21,500 16,000 57:43 1941_43 First Ave 21,500 16,000 57:43 1945-47 First Ave 21,500 16,000 57:43 1949-51 First Ave 29,500 22,500 57:43 1953 First Ave 52,500 37,500 63:37 1957-9 First Ave 27,000 18,000 59:41 1961 First Ave 27,000 18,000 59:41 1963 First Ave 35,000 25,000 58:42 1969 First Ave 37,000 33,000 59:41 1922 Second Ave 42,000 26,500 61.3:38.7 1924-6 Second Ave 33,500 17,500 66:34 1928-30 Second Ave 33,500 17,500 66:34 1932-4 Second Ave 33,500 17,500 66:34 1936-8 Second Ave 42,000 26,500 61.3:38.7 1946 Second Ave 13.500 16,500 45:55 1948 Second Ave 8.000 10,000 44:56 1950 Second Ave 8.000 10,000 44:56 1952 Second Ave 10.000 10.000 50:50 1954 Second Ave 10,000 10,000 50:50 1956 Second Ave 8,000 10,000 44:56 1958 Second Ave 8,000 10,000 44:56 1960 Second Ave 13,500 16,500 45:55 1970 Second Ave 7.500 8,500 47:53 1972 Second Ave 7,500 8.500 47:53 1974 Second Ave 7,500 8,500 47:53 1976 Second Ave 10,000 10,000 50:50 1978 Second Ave 10,000 10.000 50:50 1980 Second Ave 10,000 10.000 50:50 1982 Second Ave 13.500 16,500 45:55 1984 Second Ave 10,500 14.000 40:60 1986 Second Ave 7,500 8,500 47:53 1988 Second Ave 7,500 8,500 47:53 1992 Second Ave 10,000 10,000 50:50 1994 Second Ave 10,000 10,000 50:50 1996 Second Ave 10,000 10.000 50:50 1998 Second Ave 13,500 16,500 45:55 303 East 99th St 26,000 7,500 78:22 305-7 East 99th St 26.000 7,500 78:22 309 Fast 99th St 26.000 7,500 78:22 311-13 East 99th bt 26,000 7.500 78:22 305 East 100th St 27,500 9.500 64:36 306-8 East 100th St 33.000 12,000 73:27 307-9 East 100th St 27,500 9,500 64:36 310-12 East 100th St 33,000 12,000 73:27 311 East 100th St 27,500 9,500 64:.-^6 313-15 East 100th St 27,500 9,500 64:36 314-16 East 100th St 33,000 12,000 73:27 317 East 100th St 27,500 9,500 64:36 145 UPPER EAST SIDE TENEMENT SECTION— Continued Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address , ' ^ Ratio Improvements Land 318-20 East 100th St $33,000 $12,000 73:27 319 East 100th St 14,000 6,000 70:30 321 East 100th St 14,000 6,000 70:30 322-24 East 100th St 33,000 12,000 73:27 323 East 100th St 14,000 6,000 70:30 325 East 100th St 14,000 6,000 70:30 326-28 East 100th St 33,000 12,000 73:27 327 East 100th St 21,000 9,000 70:30 329 East 100th St 21,000 9,000 70-30 330-32 East 100th St 33,000 12,000 73:27 331 East 100th St 21,000 9,000 70-30 333 East 100th St 21,000 9,000 70-30 334-36 East 100th St 33,000 12,000 73-27 338-340 East 100th St 33,000 12,000 73-27 302 East 101st St 27.000 11,000 71 -29 303 East 101st St 9,000 7,000 5644 304 East 101st St 15.000 7,000 68-32 305 East 101st St 8.000 7,000 53-47 306 East 101st St 15,000 7,000 68-32 307 East 101st St 8.000 7,000 53-47 308 East 101st St 15,000 7,000 68-32 309 East 101st St 8.000 7,000 53-47 310-12 East 101st St 15,000 7,000 68-32 311 East 101st St 8,000 7,000 53:47 313 East 101st St 8.000 7,000 53:47 314-16 East 101st St 25,500 9,500 74-26 315 East 101st St ^. 16.000 7,000 70-30 317 East 101st St 20,000 8,000 71 -29 318-20 East 101st St 25,500 9,500 74:26 319 East 101st St 19,500 8,000 71-29 321 East 101st St 19.500 8,000 71 -29 322-24 East 101st St 25,500 9,500 74-26 323 East 101st St 19,500 8,000 71 -29 325 East 101st St 19,500 8,000 71 :29 326-28 East 101st St 25.500 9,500 74-26 327 East 101st St -19.500 8.000 71 -29 329 East 101st St 1Q,500 8,000 71 -29 330 East 101st St 25.500 9,500 7426 331-33 East 101st St 27.500 9,500 74-26 332 East 101st St 25..500 9,500 74-26 334 East 101st St 25.500 9,500 74-26 335-37 East 101st St 27,500 9,500 74-26 3.^6 East 101st St 25,500 9,500 74-26 338-40 East 101st St 25.500 9,500 74-26 339-41 East 101st St 27,500 9,500 74-26 343-45 East 101st St 27,500 9,500 74-26 302 East 102nd St 11,000 7,000 61-39 303 East 102nd St 10,000 6,000 62-38 304 East 102nd St 11,000 7,000 61-39 305 East 102nd St 26.000 10.500 71-29 306 East 102nd St 13,000 7,000 65-35 307-9 East 102nd St 26,000 10.500 71-29 308 East 102nd St 11,000 7,000 61-39 310 East 102nd St 11,000 7,000 61-39 311 East 102nd St 26,000 10,500 71-29 313-15 East 102nd St 26.000 10,500 71 -29 317 East 102nd St 26.000 10.500 71-29 319 East 102nd St 26.000 10,500 7129 320 East 102nd St 11,500 7,000 62-38 322 East 102nd St 10.500 7.000 60-40 324 East 102nd St 10.500 7.000 60:40 326-28 East 102nd St 25.500 10.500 71-29 330 East 102nd St .^ 25.500 10,500 71:29 146 UPPER EAST SIDE TENEMENT SECTION— Concluded Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 332-34 East 102nd St $25,500 $10,500 71:29 336 East 102nd St 25,500 10,500 71:29 304 East 103rd St 26,000 10,500 71:29 306-08 East 103rd St 26,000 10,500 71:29 310 East 103rd St 26,000 10,500 71:29 312-14 East 103rd St 26,000 10,500 71:29 316-18 East 103rd St 26,000 10,500 71:29 320 East 103rd St 26,000 10,500 71:29 $2,521,000 $1,315,500 147 RIVINGTON STREET SECTION {Standard Composite Ratio: 38.34 : 61.66) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address . ■ , Ratio Improvements Land 54 Rivington Street $14,000 $31,000 31 :69 56 Rivington Street 2,000 16,000 11 :89 62 Rivington Street 4,000 16,000 20:80 64 Rivington Street 9,000 16,000 36:64 70 Rivington Street 8,000 30,000 21 :79 72 Rivmgton Street 4,000 16,000 20:80 74 Rivmgton Street 4,000 16,000 20:80 76 Rivmgton Street 5,000 16,000 24:76 88 Rivington Street 9,000 16,000 31 :69 90 Rivington Street 9,000 20,000 31 :69 92 Rivington Street 10,000 19,000 34:66 98 Rivington Street 13,000 26,000 33:67 112 Rivmgton Street 7,000 18,000 28:72 126 Rivington Street 3,000 16,000 16:84 130-38 Rivington Street 30,000 58,000 34:66 134 Rivington Street 4,000 18,000 18:82 144 Rivington Street 12,000 18,000 31 :69 167 Stanton Street 2,000 11,000 15:85 97 Stanton Street 6,000 18,000 25:75 99 Stanton Street 5,000 17,000 23:77 113 Stanton Street 7,000 20,000 26:74 123 Stanton Street 9,000 19,000 32:68 125 Stanton Street 9,000 19,000 32:68 127 Stanton Street 7,000 19,000 27:73 129-31 Stanton Street 10,000 20,000 33:67 143 Stanton Street 1,500 14,000 10:90 145 Stanton Street 1,000 12,000 8:92 196 Eldridge Street 10,000 20,000 33:67 198 Eldridge Street 10,000 20,000 33:67 202 Eldridge Street 12,000 20,000 37:63 208 Eldridge Street 11,500 20,500 34:66 210 Elddrige Street 4,000 23,000 38:62 218 Eldridge Street 9,500 20,500 32:68 220 Eldridge Street 9,500' 20,500 32:68 152 Allen Street 10,000 19,000 34:66 154 Allen vStreet 10,000 19,000 34:66 165 Allen Street 3,000 17,000 15:85 167 Allen Street 6,000 17,000 26:74 170 Allen vStreet 10,000 19,000 34:66 172 Allen Street 10,000 19,000 34.66 173 Allen Street 3,000 17,000 15:85 175 Allen Street 1,000 14,000 7:93 177 Allen Street 8,000 21,000 28:72 146 Orchard Street 7,000 22,500 24:76 148 Orchard Street 6,000 22,000 21:79 150 Orchard Street 6,000 22,000 21:79 152 Orchard Street 6,000 22,000 21:79 154 Orchard Street 6,000 22,000 21:79 156 Orchard Street 6,500 22,000 23:77 158 Orchard Street 6,500 22,500 22:78 160 Orchard Street 6,500 21,500 23:77 162 Orchard Street 6,500 22,000 23:77 168-70 Orchard Street 25,000 45,000 36:64 135 Ludlow Street 500 3,500 12:88 136 Ludlow Street 5,000 19,000 21:79 137 Ludlow Street 12,000 23,000 34:66 144 Ludlow Street 12,000 23,000 34:66 145 Ludlow Street 4,000 15,000 21:79 146 Ludlow Street 12,000 23,000 34:66 147 Ludlow Street 4,000 15,000 21:79 148 RIVINGTON STREET SECTION— Continued Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased. Assessed Values Address f * \ Ratio Improvements Land 148 Ludlow St " $10,000 $23,000 30:70 149 Ludlow St 15,000 23,000 18:82 150 Ludlow St 10,000 23,000 30:70 151 Ludlow St 15,000 23,000 18:82 152 Ludlow St 7,000 23,000 23:77 154 Ludlow St 7,000 23,000 23:77 155 Ludlow St 14,000 23,000 38:62 156 Ludlow St 7,000 23,000 23:77 157 Ludlow St 14,000 23,000 38:62 158 Ludlow St 7,000 23.000 23:77 159 Ludlow St 5,000 12,000 29:71 160 Ludlow St 20,000 35,000 36:64 139-41 Ludlow St 5,000 46,000 10:90 132 Essex St 30,000 60,000 33:67 136 Essex St 10,000 25,000 29:71 137 Essex St 8,500 22,500 27:73 138 Essex St 10,000 25,000 29:71 139 Essex St 13,500 22,500 37:63 140 Essex St 10,000 25,000 29:71 141 Essex St 13,500 22,500 37:63 142 Essex St 9,000 25,000 26:74 143 Essex St 13,500 22,500 37:63 144 Essex St 9,000 25,000 26:74 145 Essex St 13,500 22,500 36:64 146 Essex St 9,500 25,000 28:72 147 Essex St 12,500 22,500 36:64 148 Essex St 11,500 25,000 32:68 150 Essex St 7,000 25,000 22:78 152 Essex St 5,000 25,000 17:83 153 Essex St 8,000 18,000 31:69 155 Essex St 7,000 18,000 28:72 157 Essex St 10,000 27,000 27:73 135 Norfolk St 13,500 24,000 36:64 136 Norfolk St 10,000 24.000 29:71 137 Norfolk St 13,500 24,000 36:64 138 Norfolk St 10,000 24,000 29:71 139 Norfolk St 13,500 24,000 36:64 140 Norfolk St 7,000 24,000 23:77 141 Norfolk St 13,500 23,500 36:64 142 Norfolk St 10,500 23,500 31:69 143 Norfolk St 13.500 23,500 36:64 144 Norfolk St 7,500 23,500 24:76 145 Norfolk St 7,500 23,500 24:76 146 Norfolk St 7.500 23.500 24:76 148 Norfolk St 8.500 23,500 27:73 150 Norfolk St 8,500 23,500 27:73 157 Norfolk St 5,500 21,500 20:80 159 Norfolk St 6,500 15,500 30:70 125 Suffolk St 8,000 24,000 25:75 127 Suffolk St 8.000 24.000 25:75 129 Suffolk St 8.000 24.000 25:75 131 Suffolk St 9.000 24,000 27:73 133 Suffolk St 10,000 24,000 29:71 135 Suffolk St 10,000 24,000 29:71 $1,020,000 $2,729,500 149 RIVINGTON STREET SECTION— Conduded Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address i * v Ratio Improvements Land 66-68 Rivington St $39,000 $43,000 48:52 86 Rivington St 21,000 32,000 40:60 94-96 Rivington St 31,000 42,000 42:58 100 Rivington St 40,000 50,000 44:56 132 Rivington St 31,000 42,000 42:58 136-38 Rivington St 32,000 40,000 44:56 146 Rivington St 28,000 42,000 40:60 79 Stanton St 13,000 19,000 41:59 81 Stanton St 13,000 19,000 41 :59 83 Stanton St 13,000 19,000 41:59 85 Stanton St 13,000 19,000 41 :59 87 Stanton St 20,000 32,000 38.46:61.54 101-3 Stanton St 20,000 33,000 48:62 121 Stanton St 20,000 28,500 41 :59 147 Stanton St 17,000 23,000 42.5:57.5 200 Eldridge St 13,000 20,000 40:60 204-6 Eldridge St 29,000 41,000 41 :59 212 Eldridge St 7,000 11,000 38.9:61.1 214-16 Eldridge St 24,000 26,000 48:52 151-3 Allen St 27,000 27,000 50:50 156 Allen St 13,000 16.000 45:55 158 Allen St 13,000 16,000 45:55 157-9 Allen St 30,000 28,000 52:48 160 Allen St 13,000 16,000 45:55 161 Allen St 20,000 17,000 54:46 162 Allen St 13,000 16,000 45:55 163 Allen St 13,000 17,000 43:57 164 Allen St 13,000 16,000 45:55 166 Allen St 13,000 16,000 45:55 169 Allen St 14,000 17,000 45:55 171 Allen St 14,000 17,000 45:55 141-43 Orchard St 40,000 50,000 44:56 145 Orchard St 13,500 21,500 38.6:61.4 147 Orchard St 13,500 21,500 38.6:61.4 149 Orchard St 13,500 21.500 38.6:61.4 151 Orchard St 13,500 21,500 38.6:61.4 153 Orchard St 13,500 21,500 38.6:61.4 155 Orchard St 13,500 21,500 38.6:61.4 157 Orchard St 13,500 21,500 38.6:61.4 1.S9 Orchard St 17,000 26,000 40:60 161 Orchard St 17,000 26,000 40:60 163 Orchard St 14,500 22,500 39:61 164 Orchard St 17,000 22,000 44:56 165 Orchard St 14,500 22,500 39:61 166 Orchard St 17,000 22,000 44:56 138-40 Orchard St 30,000 45,000 40:60 142 Orchard St 15,000 23,000 40:60 143 Orchard St 24,000 33,000 42:58 147 Orchard St 16.500 23.500 43:57 149 Orchard St 16,500 23,500 43:57 151 Orchard St 16,500 23,500 43:57 152 Orchard St 15,500 23,500 40:60 153 Orchard St 16,500 23,500 43:57 154 Orchard St 15,500 23.500 40:60 156-58 Orchard St 28,000 43,000 39:61 123 Suffolk St 13,500 20,000 40:60 137 Suffolk St 17,000 24,000 41:59 139 Suffolk St 16,500 24.000 41 :59 147-49 Suffolk St 31,000 45,000 41:59 $1,123,500 $1,540,000 160 HOUSTON STREET SECTION (Standard Cotnpositc Ratio: 38.34:61.66) ] Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address > ' < Ratio Improvements Land 4 First Ave $8,000 $20,000 29:71 6 First Ave 8,000 20,000 29:71 12 First Ave 10,000 31,000 24:76 14 First Ave 12,000 26,000 32:68 16 First Ave 7,000 20,000 26:74 22 First Ave 4,000 20,000 17:83 32 First Ave 16,000 27,000 37:63 34 First Ave 8,000 17,000 32:68 36 First Ave 9,000 23,000 28:72 38 First Ave 10,000 22.000 31:69 40 First Ave 5,000 14,000 26:74 42 First Ave 8,000 19,000 30:70 44 First Ave 8,000 19,000 30:70 46 First Ave 12,000 30.000 29:71 1-3 Avenue A 15,000 30,000 33:67 5 Avenue A 15,000 35,000 31:69 9 Avenue A 7,500 14,500 27:73 13 Avenue A 5.500 13.500 22:78 15 Avenue A 4,000 14,000 29:71 17 Avenue A 4,000 11,000 34:66 23 Avenue A 4.000 11,000 30:70 29 Avenue A 8,000 21,000 20:80 33 Avenue A 9.000 21,000 25:75 35 Avenue A 9,000 21,000 25:75 37 Avenue A 7,000 21,000 30:70 39 Avenue A 7.000 21,000 30:70 41 Avenue A 15.000 20.000 28:72 194 East Houston St 5.000 10.000 33:67 208 East Houston St 10,000 17.000 37:63 222 East Houston St 5,000 10.000 33:67 224 East Houston St 5.000 9.500 34:66 226 East Houston St 4.800 9.200 34:66 228 East Houston St 5,000 9.000 35:64 78 East 1st St 7,000 17.000 29:71 81 East 1st St 1.000 7,000 13:87 83 East 1st St 1,000 7.000 13:87 89 East 1st St 3.000 6.000 33:67 91 East 1st St 3,000 6,000 33:67 981/ East 1st St 3,000 15,000 17:83 100' East 1st St 6.000 15.000 29:71 102 East 1st St 6,000 15,000 29:71 104 East 1st St 5,000 12,000 29:71 106 East 1st St 5,000 12.000 29:71 118 Ea,st 1st St 1.000 15,000 6:94 105 East 2nd St 5,000 13,000 28:72 107 East 2nd St 10,000 18,000 36:64 109 East 2nd St 10,000 18.000 36:64 111 East 2nd St 8.000 18,000 25:75 113 East 2nd St 10,000 18,000 36:64 115 East 2nd St 16,000 13.000 3268 104 East 3rd St 5,000 9,000 36:64 106 East 3rd St 6,000 13,000 32:68 108 East 3rd St 6.000 16,000 2476 110 East 3rd St 5.000 16,000 24:76 112 East 3rd St 5,000 16,000 24:76 114 Fast 3rd St 5,000 16,000 24:76 116 East 3rd St ^ 5,000 16,000 24:76 118 East 3rd St 5,000 16,000 24:76 120 East 3rd St 5,000 16,000 24:76 122 East 3rd St 5.000 16,000 24:76 151 HOUSTON STREET SECTION— Conimued Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address i * n Ratio Improvements Land 124 East 3rd St $5,000 $16,000 24:76 126 East 3rd St 5,000 16,000 24:76 128 East 3rd St 5,000 16,000 24:76 130 East 3rd St 5,000 18,000 22:78 132 East 3rd St 5,000 18,000 22:78 134 East 3rd St 5,000 18,000 22:78 136 East 3rd St 5,000 18,000 22:78 138 East 3rd St 5,000 18,000 22:78 140 East 3rd St 2,000 12,000 14:86 $463,803 $1,151,700 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address , * ■ n Ratio Improvements Land 8-10 First Ave $37,000 $53,000 41:59 18 First Ave 30,000 40,000 43:57 26 First Ave 37,000 44,000 46:54 180-84 E. Houston St 45,000 50,000 47:53 196 E. Houston St 5,000 8,000 38.46:61.54 198 E. Houston St 12,000 19,000 41 :59 200 E. Houston St 12,000 18,500 40:60 202 E. Houston St 12,000 18,000 40:60 206 E. Houston St 11,500 17,500 40:60 214-18 E. Houston St 2,500 32,000 44:56 220 E. Houston St 10,000 15,000 40:60 80-2 E. First St 33,000 32,000 51:49 90 E. First St 32,000 33,000 49:51 94 E. First St 32,000 33,000 49:51 98 E. First St 32,000 33,000 49:51 110-12 E. First St 33,000 29,000 53:47 114-16 E. First St 31,000 29.000 52:48 103 East 2nd St 11,000 16.000 41:59 104-6 East 2nd St 35,000 50.000 41:59 110 East 2nd St , 35,000 36,000 49:51 112 East 2nd St 25,000 21,000 54:46 114 East 2nd St 25,000 21,000 54:46 116 East 2nd St 25,000 21,000 54:46 117-19 East 2nd St 30,000 30,000 50:50 120 East 2nd St 25,000 21,000 54:46 122 East 2nd St 25,000 21,000 54:46 124 East 2d St 25,000 21.000 54:46 126 East 2nd St 25,000 21,000 54:46 128 East 2nd St 25.000 21,000 54:46 132 East 2nd St 31,500 31.500 50:50 136 East 2nd St 31.000 31,000 50:50 $780,500 $866,500 152 None. ELEA^ATOR APARTMENT SECTION (Standard Composite Ratio: 38.34:61.66) Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ratio Address r "^ Improvements Land 4185 Broadway $185,000 $95,000 66:34 4197 Broadway 200,000 105,000 66:34 4221 Broadway 175,000 100,000 64:36 4233-39 Broadway 149,000 96,000 71 .29 4241 Broadway 170,000 100,000 63:37 717 West 177th St 119,000 41,000 74:26 701 West 178th St 150,000 80,000 65:35 718 West 178th St 114.000 41,000 74:26 825 West 178th St 118,500 31,500 79:21 830 West 179th St 118,500 31,500 79:21 725 West 180th St 194.000 39,000 71:29 804 West 180th St 125.000 45,000 74:26 720 West 181st St 125,000 60,000 68:32 728 West 181st St 135,000 60,000 69:31 736 West 181st St 142,000 63,000 69:31 S.W.C. 181st St., bet. Pinehurst & Northern Ave. (Comfort Realty Co.) 155,000 60,000 70:30 S.E.C. 181st St., bet. Pinehurst & Northern Ave. (Ft. View Const. Co.) 143.000 52,000 73:27 S.E.C. Ft. Washington Av. & 180th St 135,000 65,000 67:33 454 Ft. Washinjxtton Ave 305,000 135,000 69:31 N.E.C. Ft. Washington Ave. & 180th St. . . . 175.000 80,000 69:31 N.W.C. Ft. Washington Ave. & 177th St... 153.000 67,000 70:30 S.W.C. Ft. Washington Ave. & 178th St. . . . 153,000 67.000 70:30 S.W.C. Ft. Washington Ave. & 179th St. . . . 130,000 60,000 68:32 N.W.C. Ft. Washington Ave. & 179th St. . . . 143,000 65,000 61 :31 S.W.C. Ft. Washington Ave. & 180th St. . . . 141,000 64,000 68:32 447 Ft. Washington Ave 1 34,000 66.000 67 .SS — Ft. Washington Ave 91,000 49,000 65:35 — Ft. Washington Ave 135,000 72,000 65:35 N.W.C. Pinehurst Ave. & 177th St 147,000 48,000 75 :25 S.W.C. Pinehurst Ave. & 178th St 147.000 48,000 75 :25 SE.C. Pinehurst Ave. & 179th St 122,000 43.000 74:26 N E.G. Pinehurst Ave. & 179th St 125.000 45,000 74:26 S.E.C. Pinehurst Ave. & 181st St 163.000 67,000 71 :29 S.E.C. Pinehurst Ave. & 180th St 124,000 36,000 75:25 N.E.C. Pinehurst Ave. & 179th St 124,000 36,000 75 :25 $5,165,000 $2,213,000 153 None. WALK-UP APARTMENT SECTION (Standard Composite Ratio: 38.34:61.66) Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address > ^ v Ratio Improvements Land — Audubon Ave $48,000 $27,000 64:36 185 Audubon Ave 53,500 33,500 62:38 189 Audubon Ave 21,000 14,000 60:40 199-209 Audubon Ave 43,000 33,000 56 :44 247-51 Audubon Ave 128,000 62,000 67 :33 255 Audubon Ave 17,500 21,500 56:44 503-5 West 174th St 29,000 14,000 67:33 509 West 174th St 43,000 21,000 67:33 557-61 West 174th St 60,000 32,000 65 :35 503-5 West 175th St 28,000 17,000 62:38 507-9 West 175th St 28,000 17,000 62:38 511-13 West 175th St 28,000 17,000 62:38 515-17 West 175th St 28,000 17,000 62:38 516-18 West 175th St 25,000 14,000 64:36 520 West 175th St 25,000 14,000 64:36 521 West 175th St 31,000 19,000 62:38 502 West 176th St 27,000 14,000 66:34 503 West 176th St 26,500 13,500 67:33 505-7 West 176th St 26,500 13,500 67:33 506 West 176th St 27,000 14,000 66:34 509-11 West 176th St 26,500 13,500 67:33 510 West 176th St 27,000 14,000 66:34 513-15 West 176th St 26,500 13,500 67:33 514 West 176th St 27,000 14,000 66:34 574-80 West 176th St 84,000 42,000 67:33 502-4 West 177th St 26,500 13,500 67:33 503-17 West 177th St 106,000 54,000 66:34 506-8 West 177th St 26,500 13,500 67:33 510-12 West 177th St 26,500 13,500 67:33 514-16 West 177th St 26,500 13,500 67:33 575-87 West 177th St 86,000 56,000 63:37 510-12 West 178th St 25.000 19,000 57:43 534-36 West 178th St 38,000 30,000 56:44 586-90 West 178th St 48.000 32,000 60 :40 592-96 West 178th St 48.000 32,000 60:40 2300 Amsterdam Ave 36.000 31,000 55:45 2304-6 Amsterdam Ave 29,000 24,000 55 :45 2364 Amsterdam Ave 23,000 20,000 53:47 2356 Amsterdam Ave 23.000 20,000 53:47 1340-2 St. Nicholas Ave 29,000 31,000 48:52 1344-6 St. Nicholas Ave 24.000 24,000 50:50 1348-50 St. Nicholas Ave 24,000 24,000 50:50 1352-4 St. Nicholas Ave 24,000 24,000 50:.S0 1356 St. Nicholas Ave 29,000 34,000 46:54 $1,632,000 $1,034,000 154 Address 64 71 73 77 95 96 97 RIVERSIDE DRIVE SECTION {Standard Composite Ratio: 38.34:61.66) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Owner or Occupant - -' Improvements Land C-M.Schwa^ S650000 Sl,050.000 |^-^5^v.;::::::::::: i6,ooo 2.000 iSlSSin::::::::::::::::::::: ;oo 25,000 Mi;„r^^"^ ::: IS T"= S.;h^ 12-000 20,000 fe.'^HStzlinger:^ 12.000 ^0.000 $769,000 $1,250,000 Ratio 38.2:61.8 37.5:62.5 37.2:62.8 37.5:62.5 37.5:62.5 36.9:63.1 36.9:63.1 37.5:62.5 37.5:62.5 Address 1 3 4 23 24 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 51 61 62 63 72 74 75 76 78 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 90 91 92 93 94 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Owner or Occupant - 7' , ' Improvements Land T Q TT PrPr.tk^ $53,000 $57,000 r¥S"- ■■•■■••■■■■■ » tr AngirM.Booth ■ ^. ^^^ J. Harvey and Chas. S. Neel 36,000 42.000 ^"^Fivnn"""" : i:™ 29:^ ?PWh,fP : .. 34,000 30,000 |I,^^S„.::::::::::;:::::: 24«o^ -ooo H BlSord ::'.: 23 ?„i-^rn5rn.;.::;:::::.::::: 23.000 27.000 Sophie M Edwards 17.000 27 000 Julie W. Leach ok nnn q-^t nOfl Frieda Armond 25,000 33,000 John B. Manning 19-000 ^l.^UU Isabel de F. CoUron 20,000 23,U0U Harrison B. Moore 20,000 23,000 Delos McCurdy, Trustee 21,000 22,000 Hester J. Morton 20,000 2 000 S^S?5?^iedier;::::;:::::::::::: 22:000 33,000 Sarah E. Knapp 21,000 22,000 guz^-M.^¥d?ram.v.::::::::-.:.::::... 19.500 25,000 $1,061,000 $1,202,500 Ratio 48:52 44:56 47:53 48:52 48:52 46.2:53.8 53.3:46.7 52.5:47.5 53.1:46.9 54.5:45.5 53.2:46.8 51.1:48.9 55.5:44.5 42.3:57.7 47.1:52.9 51:49 50:50 52.4:47.6 42.9:57.1 50:50 44:56 44:56 42:58 39:61 40:60 46:54 39:61 46:54 43:57 48:52 46:54 46:54 49:51 49:51 44:56 40:60 49:51 42:58 46:54 44:56 43:57 40:60 155 FIFTH AVENUE SECTION (Standard Composite Ratio: 38.34:61.66) Address 800 801 802 803 804 805-7 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 820 824 825 826 827 830 833 834 835 836 837 842-3 844 845 850-2 855 858 864 871 874 875 876 881 883 900 9i2 914 922 926 927 931 932 933 934 964 967 972 Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Owner or Occupant '— ♦ ^ Ratio Improvements Land Louisa M. Gerry |200,000 $1,200,000 14:86 Helen C. Bostwick 65,000 335,000 16:84 A. C. Bostwick 25,000 175,000 12:88 A. C. Bostwick 25,000 175,000 12:88 George R. Fearing 55,000 200,000 22:78 W.E.Roosevelt 20,000 220,000 8:92 E. L. Winthrop 60,000 720,000 8:92 Geo. Amsinck 70,000 295,000 19:81 W. F. Loring 20,000 180,000 14:86 Clara L. McMurtry 38,000 202,000 16:84 Hugh J. Chisholm 85,000 160,000 35:65 Thos. Rutter 35,000 175,000 17:83 G. G. Lake 35,000 175,000 17:83 A.L.Gerry 70,000 155,000 31:69 Pen Alpha Realty Co 90,000 300,000 23:77 J. B. Haggin 40,000 800,000 5. 95 Cath. L. Kernochan 65,000 195,000 25:75 I. V. Brokaw 50,000 170,000 23:77 Josephine Brooks 65,000 170,000 28;72 E. J. Berwind 115,000 335,000 26:74 Jas. B. Haggin 180,000 350,000 34:66 Wm. Guggenheim 170,000 280,000 37. 8:62. 2 Three States Realty Co 170,000 280,000 37. 8:62. 2 J.W.Herbert 90,000 200,000 31:69 Isadore Wormser, Jr 20,000 175,000 10:90 Sophie A. Sherman 120,000 455,000 21:79 John J. Astor 600,000 1,300,000 32:68 J. J. Astor 100,000 175,000 36:64 Elizabeth B. Schley 110,000 475,000 18:82 H. O. Havemeyer Est 200,000 775,000 21:79 Cecelia Borg 55,000 320,000 15:85 Geo. Gould .' 250,000 525,000 32:68 Thos. F. Ryan 325,000 1,200,000 21:79 5th Av. & 68th St. Co 75,000 610,000 11:89 H. P. Whitney 425,000 875,000 33:67 Wm. MitcheU 130,000 395,000 25:75 Daniel G. Reed 85,000 165,000 34:66 Mary B. Harrison 95,000 205,000 32:68 Ogden Mills 115,000 585,000 16:84 E. H. Harriman 200,000 675,000 23:77 A. Lewisohn 65,000 485,000 12:88 John Sloan 80,000 320,000 20:80 Mrs. N. E. Bayliss 60,000 325,000 16:84 Mary I. Burden 100,000 400,000 20:80 John N. Sterling 70,000 175,000 29:71 Samuel Thorne 110,000 300,000 27:73 Geo. W. Quintard 65,000 310,000 17:83 J. W. Simpson 85,000 180,000 32:68 A. D. Pell 200,000 550,000 27:73 S. B. Chapin 45,000 240,000 16:84 J. D. Lynig 20,000 160,000 14:86 M. L. Schiff 40,000 210,000 16:84 L. V. Karkness 95,000 180,000 35:65 A. W. Hoyt 110,000 295,000 27:73 Five Boroughs Realty Co 165,000 310,000 35:65 Martha M. Wysong 135,000 265,000 34:66 Sarah H. Dietrich 75,000 150,000 33:67 Dr. Geo. H. Butler 62,000 153,000 29:71 Theresa Schiff 150,000 310,000 33:67 Wm. V. Lawrence 75,000 245,000 23:77 Payne Whitney 230,000 455,000 34:66 156 Address 984 986 987 988 989 990 993 1006 1007 1008 1009 1020 1028 1031 1032 1033 1641 1043 1044 1045 1046 1048 1053 1054 1056 1071 1080 1116 FIFTH AVENUE SECTION— Continued Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Owner or Occupant " > Ratio Improvements Land Isaac D. Fletcher $125,000 $340,000 27:73 Isaac V. Brokaw 100,000 400,000 20:80 Isaac V. Brokaw 90,000 155,000 37:63 Wm. J. Curtis 60,000 150,000 29:71 W. Lewisohn 80,000 150,000 35:65 Pauline Murray 45,000 150,000 23:77 Nicholas F. Brady 70,000 230,000 23:77 Frank W. Woolworth 125,000 235,000 35:65 Edinee Reisinger 175,000 325,000 35:65 Katherine F. Gilshenen 35,000 135,000 21 :79 Kate F. Timmerman 60,000 115,000 34:66 Sallie J. A. Hall 95,000 155,000 38:62 James B. Duke 140,000 225,000 30:70 William Salomon 115,000 410,000 22:78 Harriet V. S. Thorn 115,000 200,000 37:63 James H. Hammersley 50,000 300,000 14:86 Annie Leary 50,000 100,000 33:67 George Smith 150,000 100,000 33:67 James B. Clews 65,000 160,000 29:71 Lloyd Warren 30,000 190,000 14:86 David Mayer 10,000 90,000 10:90 Matthew H. Beers 35,000 90,000 28:72 R. Hopkins 25,000 90,000 22:78 Michael Dreicer 50,000 90,000 36:64 Wm. S. Miller 125,000 275,000 31:69 George Leary 40,000 80,000 33:67 W. H. Erhort 60,000 170,000 26:74 Keokee M. Perin 28,000 82,000 25:75 James Speyer 140,000 460,000 23:77 Henry Phipps 300,000 800,000 27:73 Philip Livingston 105,000 170,000 38. 2:61. Percival Farquliar 105,000 175,000 37:63 Andrew Carnegie 475,000 1,875,000 20:80 Jacob Ruppert 35,000 370,000 9:91 $10,088,000 $31,417,000 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address 854 856 923 924 925 954 956 962 973 985 991 992 1014 1015 1025 1026 1027 1033 Owner or Occupant ' ^— Improvements Geo. F. Mason $180,000 E. H. Gary 285,000 EHza Guggenheimer 110,000 Georgia W. Warren 125,000 M. W. Terrell 85,000 Caroline H. Bertron 120,000 E. S. Harkness 220,000 S. W. Bridgeham 155,000 J. H. Harding 180,000 W. A. Clark Realty Co 3,000,000 J. B. Duke 600,000 Georgia D. Heredia 120,000 Isaac V. Brokaw 100,000 Zelma K. Clark 95,000 Rocklege Cons. Co 95,000 J. F. A. Clarke 95,000 George J. Gould 95,000 Lloyd S. Bryce 150,000 Mary J. Kingsland 178,000 Harriet S. Clark 185,000 Helen C. Robbins 70,000 Ratio Land $245,000 42:58 375,000 43:57 170,000 39.3:60.7 200,000 38.5:61.5 115,000 39.5:60.5 180,000 40:60 320,000 41:59 185,000 46:54 200,000 47:53 1,000,000 75:25 850,000 41:59 180,000 40:60 150,000 40:60 145,000 40:60 144,000 40:60 130,000 42:58 130,000 42:58 200,000 43:57 182,000 49:51 200,000 48:52 100,000 41:59 157 FIFTH AVENUE SECTION— Concluded Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ratio Address Improvements Land 1068 Hamilton M. Weed $145,000 $105,000 58:42 1069 Emily A. V. B. Reynolds 165,000 185,000 47:53 Louise M. Pollack 115,000 180,000 39:61 1072 W. W. Fuller 115,000 120,000 49:51 1073 John H. Hanan 115,000 120,000 49:51 .... Benj. N. Duke 220,000 245,000 47:53 1081 Eliza W. Van Ingen 100,000 110,000 48:52 1082 Eleonore Phillips 75,000 100,000 43:57 1083 Archer M. Huntington 105,000 120,000 47:53 I. Townsend Burden 200,000 245,000 45:55 1109 Frieda S. Warburg 275,000 215,000 56:44 $7,873,000 $15,019,000 168 I SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF FIFTH AVENUE (Standard Composite Ratio: 38.84:61.66) Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address ' * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 13 East 60th St $30,000 $85,000 26:74 15 East 60th St 30,000 85,000 26:74 17 East 60th St 30,000 85,000 2674 19 East 60th St 30,000 85,000 26:74 21 East 60th St 10,000 62,000 13:87 23 East 60th St 8,000 52,000 13:87 25 East 60th St 31,000 160,000 16:84 5 East 61st St 45,000 205,000 13:87 7 East 61st St 8,000 96,000 8:92 8 East 61st St 45,000 110,000 29:71 9 East 61st St 8,000 95,000 8:92 15 East 61st St 9,000 93,000 8:92 17 East 61st St 53,000 92,000 37:63 19 East 61st St 8.000 33,000 19:81 20 East 61st St 8,000 92,000 8:92 21 East 61st St 7,000 20,000 26:74 22 East 61st St 8,000 75,000 10:90 23 East 61st St 3,000 22,000 12:88 24 East 61st St 6,000 60,000 9:91 25 East 61st St 10,000 50,000 17-83 26 East 61st St 8,000 70,000 10:90 28 East 61st St 12,000 90.000 12:88 — East 61st St 15.000 210,000 7:93 4 East 62nd St 70,000 175,000 29:71 5 East 62nd St 10,000 98.000 9:91 7 East 62nd St 9,000 97,000 8:92 9 East 62nd St 8,000 96,000 8:92 12 East 62nd St 11,000 95,000 10:90 14 East 62nd St 10,000 94,000 9:91 15 East 62nd St 35,000 70,000 33:67 16 East 62nd St 10,000 80,000 11:89 17 East 62nd St 9,000 69.000 11:89 18 East 62nd St 22,000 78.000 22:78 19 East 62nd St 8,000 68,000 13:87 20 East 62nd St 7,000 54,000 11:89 21 East 62nd St 7.000 60.000 10:90 22 East 62nd St 9,000 73.000 11:89 24 East 62nd St 35.000 58.000 38:62 26 East 62nd St 7,000 58,000 11:89 28 East 62nd St 45,000 110.000 29:71 2 East 63rd St 2,000 63.000 2:98 4 East 63rd St 2,000 62,000 3:97 6 East 63rd St 2,000 61.000 3:97 8 East 63rd St 27.000 96,000 22:78 10 East 63rd St 8.000 94.000 8:92 12 East 63rd St 15.000 92,000 14:86 14 East 63rd St 20.000 90,000 18:82 16 East 63rd St 7.000 64,000 10:90 18 East 63rd St 7,000 64,000 10:90 20 East 63rd St 7.000 64.000 10:90 28 East 63rd St 27.000 64.000 30:70 1 East 63rd St 12.000 100,000 11:89 3 East 63rd St 10.000 98.000 9:91 7 East 63rd St 14.000 94.000 13:87 9 East 63rd St 11.000 92,000 11:89 11 East 63rd St 10.000 90.000 10:90 13 East 63rd St 9.000 71,000 11:89 21 East 63rd St 36.000 74.000 33:67 8 Fast 641 h St 5.000 76.000 6:94 9 East 64th St 37.000 173.000 18:82 JO East 64th St 5,000 75,000 6:94 159 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF FIFTH AVENVE— Continued Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address , ^ , Ratio Improvements Land ;2 East 64th St $5,000 $74,000 6:94 J4 East 64th St 5,000 73,000 6:94 5 East 64th St 8,000 106,000 7:93 16 East 64th St 33,000 72,000 31:69 !o J?""'^ ?1^u i* 21,000 67,000 24:76 18 East 64th St 50,000 90,000 36:64 19 East 64th St 5,000 71,000 7:93 20 East 64th St 20,000 88,000 19:81 21Kast64thSt 5,000 60,000 8:92 22 East 64th St 39,000 86,000 31:69 2^g^st64thSt 20,000 53,000 27:73 24 East 64th St 7,000 71,000 9:91 25 East 64th St 5,000 53,000 7:93 26 East 64th St 9,000 71,000 11:89 27 East 64th St 25.000 95,000 21:79 20 East 64th St 25,000 125,000 17:83 2 East 65th St 10,000 85,000 11:89 4 East 65th St 13,000 99,000 12:88 5 East 65th St 42,000 98,000 30:70 9 East 65th St 10,000 96,000 9:91 11 East 65 th St 13,000 107,000 12:88 13 East 65th St 15.000 80,000 11:89 J4 East 65th St 15,000 75,000 17:83 J5 East 65th St .30,000 110,000 21:79 16 East 65th St 9,000 68,000 12:88 J 7 East 65th St 13,000 90,000 13:87 }8 East 65th St 7.000 62,000 10:90 19 East 65th St 13.000 90,000 13:87 20 East 65th St 45,000 90,000 33:67 21 East 65th St 10.000 70,000 12:88 23 East 65th St 9.000 60,000 13:87 25 East 65th St 10.000 100,000 9:91 1:3 East 66th St 25,000 ' 135.000 16:84 2 East 66th St 8,000 80.000 9:91 4 East 66th St 8.000 79,000 991 6 East 66th St 18,000 78,000 19:81 8 East 66th St 18.000 77,000 19:81 East 66th St 8,000 76,000 10:90 1 East 66th St 37,000 95,000 28:72 12 East 66th St 16.000 96,000 14:86 13 East 66th St 11.000 80.000 12:88 14 East 66th St 15.000 95,000 14:86 15 East 66th St 11.000 67,000 14:86 16 East 66th St 14,000 94,000 13:87 17 East 66th St 14,000 70,000 17:83 18 East 66th St 10,000 93,000 10:90 19 East 66th St 16,000 70,000 19:81 20 East 66th St 15,000 70,000 15:85 22 East 66th St 8,000 70,000 10:90 4 East 67th St 20.000 110,000 15:85 6 East 67th St 15,000 80,000 16:84 7 East 67th St 57,000 103.000 36-64 8 East 67th St 57.000 108.000 35;65 9 East 67th St 38,000 102,000 27:73 11 Ea.st 67th St 10,000 90,000 10-90 12 East 67th St 12,000 108,000 10:90 3 East 67th St 10,000 90,000 10:90 14 East 67th St 10,000 90,000 10:90 17 East 67th St 15,000 100.000 13:87 18 East 67th St 15.000 100.000 13:87 19 East 67th St 20,000 80,000 2080 20 East 67th St 17,000 108.000 14-84 21 East 67th St 12,000 80.000 13:87 160 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF FIFTH AVENUE— Continued Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address ' * > Ratio Improvements Land 22 East 67th St $45,000 ^95,000 32:68 23 East 67th St 12,000 70,000 15:85 24 East 67th St 70,000 220,000 20:80 (Madison Ave.) 20,000 160,000 11:89 5 East 68th St 125,000 225,000 36:64 6 East 68th St 10,000 85,000 11:91 8 East 68th St 61,000 99,000 38.1:61.9 10 East 68th St 17,000 98,000 15:85 12 East 68th St 7,000 75,000 9:91 14 East 68th St 8,000 77,000 9:91 22 East 68th St 6,000 61,000 9:91 24 East 68th St 6,000 61,000 9:91 26 East 68th St 6,000 61,000 9:91 28 East 68th St 8,000 70,000 10:90 (Madison Ave.) 25,000 110.000 19:81 3 East 69th St 66,000 104,000 38.82:61.18 4 East 69th St 40,000 150,000 21:79 5 East 69th St 35,000 135,000 21:79 6 East 69th St.. 30,000 100,000 23:77 7 East 69th St 27,000 118.000 19:81 8 East 69th St 125,000 250,000 33:67 9 East 69th St 32,000 108,000 23:77 11 East 69th St 28,000 122,000 19:81 12 East 69th St 40,000 160,000 20:80 13 East 69th St 55,000 125,000 31:69 14 East 69th St 22,000 108,000 17:83 15 East 69th St 35,000 100,000 26:74 16 East 69th St 35,000 120,000 21:79 17 East 69th St 30,000 170,000 15:85 18 East 69th St 13,000 67,000 37:63 4 East 70th St 70,000 140,000 33:67 6 East 70th St 35,000 90,000 28:72 8 East 70th St 10,000 65,000 13:87 10 East 70th St 7,000 80,000 8:92 12 East 70th St 15,000 105,000 12:88 14 East 70th St 30,000 65,000 32:88 16 East 70th St 20,000 65,000 24:76 18 East 70th St 10,000 75,000 12:88 20 East 70th St 10,000 75,000 12:88 22-24 East 70th St 10,000 50,000 17:83 (Madison Ave.) 25,000 155,000 14:86 3-5 East 71st St 125,000 325.000 28:72 9 East 71st St 85,000 360,000 19:81 11 East 71st St 55,000 130,000 30:70 13 East 71st St 25,000 80,000 24:76 15 East 71st St 20,000 100,000 17:83 17 East 71st St 15,000 75,000 17:83 19 East 71st St 20,000 95,000 17:83 21 East 71st St 50,000 120,000 29:71 4 East 72nd St 50,000 105,000 32:68 6 East 72nd St 50,000 100,000 33:67 8 East 72nd St 35,000 85,000 29:71 9 East 72nd St 120,000 230,000 34:66 10 East 72nd St 40,000 85,000 32:68 12 East 72nd St 35,000 85,000 29:71 14 East 72nd St 60,000 110,000 35:65 15 East 72nd St 33,000 77,000 30:70 16 East 72nd St 60,000 105,000 36:63 17 East 72nd St 15,000 75,000 17:83 18 East 72nd St 55,000 100,000 35:65 19 East 72nd St 25,000 75,000 25:75 20 East 72nd St 55.000 105,000 34:66 22 East 72nd St 50,000 100,000 33:67 161 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF FIFTH AVENUE-Coni.««ed Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased __^!!!!!!iZ!!!^!!__, Ratio Address 'i ~ t „--j Improvements Lana 24 East 72nd St « HO 000 $250,000 ^ ^3 l^g (Madison Ave.) 275,000 47b,UUU ^^^^ I East 73rd St 40,000 luu, ^^^^ 3 East 73rd St f^f^ f^'oo5 37.5:62.5 5 East 73rd St 45 000 /o,u 37.5-62.5 7 East 73rd St 225,000 37b OUU ^^ ^^ 8 East 73rd St 15000 /^u ^^ 10 East 73rd St 14-000 gs'ooo 13:87 12 East 73rd St 10.000 ^b^^U ^^ 17 East 73rd St T({m(\ 65 000 13:87 18 East 73rd St 10-000 ^b-^^u ^^ ^^ 21 East 73rd St 20,000 4b,UUU ^^^^^ 24 East 73rd St 30,0UU . 29:71 25 East 73rd St 20,000 bO OUU 26 East 73rd St >^0,UUU - ^^.gg 27 East 73rd St |000 bU ^^^^ 29 East 73rd St... ^.'^^^ 60 qOO 20:80 (Madison Ave.) 15-000 ^,^^ 3 East 74th St..., ^-OOU ^ ^^g 4 East 74th St •4'^'^^^ g5 OOO 15:85 5 East 74th St ^'00^ 70 qoO 12:88 6 East 74th St J^'OOO ^'qqq i5:85 7 East 74th St ^^'^^^ 69,000 12 :88 8 East 74th St ^-00" ^g qoq 9:91 10 East 74th St ^'^^^ 64,000 1 1 :89 II East 74th St YmS 67,000 10:90 12 East 74th St ^-OUU ^ .^^ 13 East 74th St ^-OOO ^^^^ 27:73 14 East 74th St f 4.UUU ^7.33 15 East 74th St ^-000 qqq 22:78 16 East 74th St ^^m 62 000 9 :91 17 East 74th St.. ^-000 -qqq 9,91 18 East 74th St ^-OUU ^_^^ 19 East 74th St °-OUU - ^^.^q 20 East 74th St /.-^J^ 60 000 20:80 21 East 74th St l^'OOO - ^^^^q 22 East 74th St ^''^^^ 73 000 11:89 23 East 74th St ^ms 50,000 9:91 24 East 74th St j^-OUU ^ ^7.g3 25 East 74th St ^^'^^^ 49,000 11:89 26 East 74th St ,°'^^(^5 70,000 12:88 27 East 74th St ^^'"^^ 40,000 11:89 28 East 74th St jg'^^^ 105,000 15:85 29 East 74th St. {^-^^^ 60.000 20:80 (Madison Ave.) l^-OUO 29:71 2 East 75th St 45,000 26:74 3 East 75th St ^U.UUU 26:74 5 East 75th St ^O.OUU 3^.7 6 East 75th St ^O.OOU ^^ 37.5:62.5 8 East 75th St ^J^^^J 80.000 11:89 9 East 75th St O.OUU ^^ 2179 10 East 75th St ^^-^^^0 60,000 9:91 11 East 75th St 28000 46.000 38:62 ll-AEast75th St ^^-Ouu ^^^^^ ^^.gp 12 East 75th St ^'^^^ 73,000 9:91 14 East 75th St ■ ^^'^^^ 46,000 29:71 15East7Sth St 1^-00^ 71,000 9:91 16 East 75th St .^'^^^ 55,000 17:83 17 East 75th St -• • ^^'^^^ 71,000 29-71 18 East 75th St ^?-^^^ 25,000 17:83 19 East 7.Sth St 5-000 ^9000 12:888 162 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF FIFTH AVENUE— Continued Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address / ' ^ Ratio Improvements Land 22 East 75th St $ 14,000 $ 70,000 17:83 23Ea 75thSt":".: : 8000 42,000 16:84 3Eas 76h S 60,000 105,000 36:67 8Eas 76hS .... 50,000 75,000 40:60 9 East 76th St 40,000 65,000 38.1:6L9 12 East 76th St 9,000 58,000 ^^ P/E 14 East 76th St 35,000 60,000 36.8:632 15 East 76th St 30,000 52,000 ,, Ef^, 16 East 76th St 33,000 57,000 36.6:63 4 17 East 76th St 30,000 55,000 35:65 18 East 76th St 35.000 65,000 35:65 19 East 76th St 33,000 62,000 35:65 20 East 76th St 9,000 56.000 14:86 21 East 76th St 27,000 53,000 33:67 22 East 76th St 6,000 52,000 11:89 23 East 76th St 8,000 52,000 13:87 24 East 76th St 8,000 54,000 13.87 25 East 76th St 8,000 52,000 13:87 26 East 76th St 24,000 52,000 31:69 27 East 76th St 8,000 45,000 15:85 28 East 76th St 10,000 55,000 15:85 29 East 76th St 10,000 65,000 13:87 30 East 76th St 15,000 85,000 15:85 6 East 77th St 42,000 80,000 34:66 8 East 77th St 40,000 80,000 33:67 9 East 77th St 9,000 48,000 16:84 10 East 77th St 35,000 78.000 31:69 11 East 77th St 7,000 45,000 13:87 12 East 77th St 27,000 76,000 26:74 13 East 77th St 18,000 45,000 29:71 14 East 77th St 25,000 75.000 25:75 15 East 77th St 15,000 45,000 25:75 16 East 77th St 25,000 75,000 25:75 17 East 77th St 7,000 45,000 13:87 18 East 77th St 35,000 75.000 32:68 19 East 77th St 15,000 45,000 25:75 21 East 77th St 4,500 33,000 12:88 23 East 77th St 4,500 33,000 12:88 25 East 77th St 4,500 33,000 12:88 27 East 77th St 4,500 33,000 12:88 29 East 77th St 6.000 66.000 8:92 31 East 77th St 5,000 35.000 12:88 33 East 77th St 5,000 35,000 12:88 35 East 77th St 15,000 53,000 22:78 2 East 78th St 35.000 100,000 26:74 4 East 78th St 24.000 66,000 27:23 8 East 78th St 20,000 95,000 17:83 9 East 78th St 85,000 140,000 37.7:62,3 10 East 78th St 20,000 85.000 19:81 11 East 78th St 50,000 100,000 33:67 12 East 78th St 10,000 60,000 14:86 14 East 78th St 10,000 60,000 14:86 15 East 78th St 60,000 100,000 37:63 16 East 78th St 12,000 48,000 20:80 18 East 78th St 12,000 48.000 20:80 20 East 78th St 10,000 75,000 12:88 22 East 78th St 5,000 43,000 10:90 24 East 78th St 5,000 42,000 11:89 26 East 78th St 8,000 36.000 18:82 — East 79th St 18,000 62,000 22:78 9 East 79th St 25,000 60,000 29:71 11 East 79th St 7,000 70,000 9:91 13 East 79th St 7,000 70,000 9:91 163 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF FIFTH AVENVE— Continued Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address ' ' ^ Ratio Improvements Land 15 East 79th St $8,000 $60,000 12:88 17 East 79th St 30,000 60,000 33:67 19 East 79th St 10,000 70,000 12:88 21 East 79th St 15.000 60,000 20:80 23 East 79th St 15.000 60,000 20:80 25 East 79th St 20,000 85,000 19:81 27 East 79th St 19,000 81,000 19:81 29 East 79th St 11,000 74,000 13:87 31 East 79th St 30,000 170,000 15 :85 4 East 80th St 15.000 45,000 25:75 5 East 80th St 30,000 60,000 33:67 6 East 80th St 15,000 45,000 25 :75 7 East 80th St 30,000 50,000 37:63 8 East 80th St 15,000 45,000 25:75 10 East 80th St 15,000 45,000 25:75 12 East 80th St 15,000 45,000 25:75 13 East 80th St 29.000 47,000 38.5:61.5 14 East 80th St 23,000 55,000 29:71 18 East 80th St 20,000 55,000 27:73 19 East 80th St 30,000 55,000 35:65 20 East 80th St 32.000 55,000 37:63 21 East 80th St 30,000 55,000 35:65 22 East 80th St 15.000 48.000 24:76 24 East 80th St 15.500 47.000 25:75 26 East 80th St 12.000 44.000 21:79 28 East 80th St 20.000 65.000 24:76 2 East 81st St 5.000 48.000 9:91 4 East 81st St 17.000 48.000 26:74 5 East 81st St 17.000 48.000 26:14 6 East 81st St 15.000 48.000 24:76 7 East 81st St 11,000 48.000 19:81 8 East 81st St 12.000 48.000 20:80 9 East 81st St 10.000 48.000 17:83 10 East 81st St 10,000 45.000 18:82 11 East 81st St 10.000 45.000 18:82 12 East 81st St 10.000 45.000 18:82 14 East 81st St 10.000 45.000 18:82 15 East 81st St 10.000 45.000 18:82 17 East 81st St 10.000 45.000 18:82 19 East 81st St 10,000 45,000 18:82 20 East 81st St 11,000 44,000 20:80 22 East 81st St 11,000 44.000 20:80 25 East 81st St .' 5,000 30,000 35:65 2 East 82nd St 32,000 68,000 32:68 6 East 82nd St 10,000 46.000 18:82 8 East 82nd St 8.000 43.000 16:84 10 East 82nd St 10,000 43.000 19:81 12 East 82nd St 11.000 46.000 16:84 16 East 82nd St 15.000 55.000 21:79 19 East 82nd St 25.000 55.000 31:69 3 East 83rd St 1,000 128,000 2:99 7 East 83rd St 35,000 100.000 26:74 9 East 83rd St 35.000 100,000 26:74 11 East 83rd St 23.000 47.000 33:67 13 East 83rd St 20.000 45.000 31:69 14 East 83rd St 10.000 44,000 19:81 15 East 83th St 13.000 39.000 25:75 17 East 83rd St 12.000 39.000 24:76 19 East 83rd St 9.000 39.500 19:81 20 East 83rd St 10.000 44.000 19:81 21 Fast 83rd St 10.000 35.000 22:78 22 East 83rd St 21.000 44.000 32:68 23 East 83rd St 9,000 33,000 21:79 164 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF FIFTH AVENUE— Continued Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address r * \ Ratio Improvements Land 24 East 83rd St $10,000 $44,000 19:81 25 East 83rd St 9,000 33,000 21:79 26-28 East 83rd St 28,000 99,000 22:78 27 East 83rd St 9,000 33,000 21:79 29 East 83rd St 17,000 53,000 24:76 2 East 84th St 2,000 55,000 4:96 3 East 84th St 12,000 55,000 18:82 4-6-8 East 84th St 15,000 205,000 7:93 5 East 84th St 7,000 55,000 18:82 14 East 84th St 10,000 130,000 7:93 16 East 84th St 34,000 57,000 37:63 18 East 84th St 33,000 57,000 37:63 20 East 84th St 33,000 57.000 37:63 22 East 84th St 3,000 21,000 12:88 24 East 84th St 4,000 28,000 12:88 26 East 84th St 4,000 28,000 12:88 28 East 84th St 7,000 46,000 13:87 2 East 85th St 10,000 30,000 25:75 4 East 85th St 8,000 21,000 18:82 6 East 85th St ; 7,500 22,500 25:75 8 East 85th St 8,000 22.000 27:73 9 East 85th St 10,000 30,000 25:75 10 East 85th St 8.000 22.000 27:73 12 East 85th St 7.500 22,500 25:75 14 East 85th St 3,000 27.000 10:90 22-24 East 8Sth St 9,000 55.000 14:86 26 East 85th St 1,000 27,000 4:96 28 East 85th St 8,000 27.000 23:77 1 East 86th St 22.000 48,000 31:69 2 East 86th St 10,000 40.000 20:80 3 East 86th St 4,000 35,000 10:90 4 East 86th St 10.000 40.000 20:80 5 East 86th St 6.000 40.000 13:87 6 East 86th St 10.000 40.000 20:80 8 East 86th St 6.000 40,000 13:87 10 East 86th .St 6,000 40,000 13-87 19 East 86th St 25.000 55.000 31:69 19 East 88th St 12.000 68.000 15:85 15 East 90th St 10.000 55,000 15:85 — East 90th St 3,000 30,000 9:91 22 East 91st St 10,000 121,000 8:92 24 East 91st St 10.000 55.000 15:85 2 East 92nd St 10.000 40.000 20:80 3 East 92nd St 11.000 42.000 21:79 4 East 92nd St 10.000 40.000 20:80 5 East 92nd St 11.000 42.000 21:79 6 East 92nd St 7,000 36.000 16:84 7 East 92nd St 10,000 40.000 20:80 8 East 92nd St 8.000 38.000 17:83 9 East 92nd St 10.000 40.000 20:80 10 East 92nd St 8.000 40.000 17:83 11 East 92nd St 10.000 40.000 20:80 12 East 92nd St 10.500 42.000 20:80 13 East 92nd St 11.000 50.000 18:82 14 East 92nd St 15.000 40.000 27:73 15 East 92nd St 13.000 39.000 25:75 16 East 92nd St 9.000 35.000 20:80 17 East 92nd St 10.000 38.000 21:79 18 East 92nd St 11.000 46,000 19:81 19 East 92nd St 10.000 38.000 21:79 20 East 92nd St 11,000 44.000 20:80 21 East 92nd St 10.000 39.000 20:80 22 East 92nd St 10,000 40,000 20:80 165 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF FIFTH AVENVE— Continued Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address , * n Ratio Improvements Land 23 East 92nd St $11,000 $41,000 21:79 24 East 92nd St 22,000 44,000 33:67 25 East 92nd St 11,000 39,000 22:78 26 East 92nd St 9,000 40,000 18:82 28 East 92nd St 16,000 40,000 29:71 1 East 93rd St 12,000 45,000 21:79 3 East 93rd St 11,000 44,000 20:80 4 East 93rd St 7,000 140,000 5:95 5 East 93rd St 10.500 43,000 20:80 6 East 93rd St 7,000 40,000 15:85 7 East 93rd St 10,500 42,000 20:80 8 East 93rd St 7,000 39,000 15:85 9 East 93rd St 10,000 41,000 20:80 10 East 93rd St 8,500 43,500 16:84 11 East 93rd St 10,000 39,000 20:80 12 East 93rd St 7,500 43,000 15:85 14 East 93rd St 7,000 40,000 15:85 15 East 93rd St 10,000 40,000 20:80 16 East 93rd St 7,000 40,000 15:85 17 East 93rd St 9,500 38,000 20:80 18 East 93rd St 7,000 40,000 15:85 19 East 93rd St 9,500 38,000 20:80 20 East 93rd St 7,000 40,000 15:85 21 East 93rd St 9,000 39.000 19:81 22 East 93rd St 7,000 40,000 15:85 23 East 93rd St 10.000 50,000 17:83 24 East 93rd St 9,000 40.000 18-82 25 East 93rd St 5,000 27,000 16:84 27 East 93rd St 5,000 27,000 16:84 29 East 93rd St 6,000 27,000 18:82 31 East 93rd St 5,000 27,000 16:84 33 East 93rd St 8,000 27,000 15:85 $9,430,500 $34,575,000 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address , " n Ratio Improvements Land 4 East 61st St $155,000 $205,000 43:57 6 East 61st St 125,000 180,000 41 :59 11 East 61st St 66,000 94,000 41:59 1 East 62nd St 125,000 180,000 41:59 6 East 62nd St 79,000 106.000 43:57 8 East 62nd St 73,000 97,000 43:57 10 East 62nd St 89,000 96,000 48:52 llEast62ndSt 115,000 175,000 40:60 5 East 63rd St 66,000 96,000 41:59 15 East 63rd St 69,000 86,000 45:55 17 East 63rd St 95,000 105.000 47:53 3 East 64th St 215,000 285,000 43:57 4 East 64th St 90,000 120.000 43:57 28 East 64th St 61,000 84,000 42:58 6 East 65th St 102,000 98.000 51:49 7 East 6Sth St 68,000 97.000 41:59 8-10 East 65th St 175.000 175,000 50:50 12 East 65th St 50,000 75.000 40:60 5 East 66th St 102.000 108,000 48:52 9 East 66th St 155.000 185.000 46:54 2 East 67th St 115.000 135,000 46:54 5 East 67th St 76,000 180,000 42:58 166 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF FIFTH AVENUE- Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ( '"' "^ Improvements Land 15 East 67th St ^. • • . $90,000 $125,000 16 East 67th St 80,000 100,000 9 East 68th St 245,000 180,000 18-20 East 68th St 100,000 130,000 3 East 69th St 66,000 104,000 3 East 70th St 85,000 125,000 11 East 70th St 115,000 135,000 12 East 70th St 87,000 113,000 13 East 70th St 90,000 110,000 14 East 70th St 91,000 109,000 15 East 70th St 80,000 105,000 16 East 70th St 90,000 105,000 17 East 70th St 80,000 100,000 18 East 70th St 85,000 100,000 19 East 70th St 105,000 120,000 870 Madison Ave 87,000 78,000 7 East 72nd St 85,000 105,000 14 East 73rd St 50,000 65,000 16 East 73rd St 50,000 65,000 19 East 73rd St 40,000 60,000 20 East 73rd St 50,000 65,000 22 East 73rd St 50,000 65,000 23 East 73rd St 60,000 50,000 1 East 75th St 155,000 185,000 5 East 76th St 40.000 60,000 6 East 76th St 52,000 80,000 7 East 76th St 51,000 74,000 10 East 76th St 54,000 66,000 11 East 76th St 37,000 58,000 WA East 76th St 46,000 64,000 4 East 77th St 60,000 85,000 3 East 78th St 140,000 145,000 4 East 78th St 95,000 145,000 5 East 78th St 75,000 100,000 6 East 78th St 65,000 100,000 7 East 78th St 75,000 100,000 8 East 78th St 120,000 125,000 10 East 78th St 110,000 105,000 12 East 78th St 75,000 100,000 14 East 78th St 75,000 95,000 16 East 78th St 100,000 125,000 18 East 78th St 100,000 100,000 — East 78th St 87,000 93,000 2 East 80th St 60,000 60,000 3 East 80th St 65,000 100,000 9 East 80th St 30,000 45,000 11 East 80th St 47,000 45,000 15-17 East 80th St 100,000 100,000 16 East 80th St 40.000 55.000 3 East 81st St 45,000 50,000 16 East 81st St 45,000 45.000 18 East 81st St 50,000 45,000 21 East 81st St 50,000 45,000 23 East 81st St 51,000 46,000 24-26 East 81st St 99.500 70.500 3 East 82nd St 70,000 60,000 4 East 82nd St 38,000 52,000 5 East 82nd St 72,000 58,000 7 East 82nd St 45.000 55,000 9 East 82nd St 40,000 55.000 11 East 82nd St 40,000 55,000 14 East 82nd St 47,000 48,000 15 East 82nd St 40,000 55,000 ■Continued Ratio 42:58 44:56 58:42 43:57 38.82:61.18 40:60 46:54 44:56 45:55 45:55 43:57 46:54 44:56 46:54 48:52 53:47 45:55 43:57 43:57 40:60 43:57 43:57 55:45 54:46 40:60 39.3:60.7 41:59 45:55 38.9:61.1 42:58 41:59 49:51 40:60 43:57 39:61 43:57 49:51 51:49 43:57 40:60 44:56 50:50 48:52 50:50 39:61 40:60 49:51 56:44 42:58 47:53 50:50 53:47 53:47 53:47 66:44 54:46 42:58 55:45 45:55 42:. 58 42:58 49:51 42:58 167 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF FIFTH AVENUE— Concluded Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Woitld Be Decreased Assessed Values Address / * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 17 East 82nd St $40,000 $55,000 42-58 18 East 82nd St 68,000 57,000 54:46 20 East 82nd St 66,000 59,000 53:47 22 East 82nd St 70,000 65,000 52:48 24 East 82nd St ,. 68,000 59,000 54:46 6 East 83rd St 85,000 70,000 55:45 8 East 83rd St 80,000 65,000 55:45 10 East 83rd St 75,000 55,000 58:42 7 East 84th St 45,000 55,000 45:55 9 East 84th St 85,000 55,000 61:39 11 East 84th St 88,000 57,000 61 :39 13-15 East 84th St 75,000 100,000 43:57 7 East 86th St 45,000 65,000 61:59 13 East 86th St 47,000 58,000 45 :55 15 East 86th St 47,000 53,000 47:53 17 East 86th St 52,000 58.000 47:53 4 East 87th St 130,000 90,000 59:41 6 East 87th St 150,000 155,000 49:51 5 East 88th St 65,000 60,000 52:48 7 East 88th St 57,000 53.000 52:48 9 East 88th St 58,000 57,000 50:50 4 East 89th St 134.000 66.000 66:33 5 East 89th St 70,000 80.000 47:53 9 East 89th St 68.000 62.000 52:48 11 East 89th St 58,000 47.000 55:45 — East 89th St 69,000 51,000 57:43 9 East 90th St 85,000 60,000 59:41 11 East 90th St 85,000 55,000 61:39 $8,902,500 $10,067,500 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS OFF RIVERSIDE DRIVE (Standard Composite Ratio: 38.3/^:61.66) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address c * ~ J^ Improvements Land 327 West 82nd St $7,000 $21,000 331 West 82nd St 12.000 25,000 300 West 83rd St 4,000 44,000 302 West 83rd St 3,000 31000 304 West 83rd St 3 000 25,000 306 West 83rd St 3,000 8,000 308 West 83rd St 6.000 4,000 309 West 83rd St 4,500 2.500 310 West 83rd St 5,500 4,500 311 West 83rd St 4,500 2,500 312 West 83rd St 4.000 4.000 313 West 83rd St 4,500 12,500 314 West 83rd St 4,000 4,000 315 West 83rd St 4,500 2,500 316 West 83rd St 3,300 14,500 301 West 84th St 8,000 20,000 328 West 84th St 5,000 12,500 330 West 84th St 7,500 5.000 332 West 84th St 7.500 5.000 334 West 84th St 6,.S00 13,500 338 West 84th St 9.000 5 000 340 West 84th St 6.500 13,500 342 West 84th St 6.500 13,500 344 West 84th St 8,000 15,000 347 West 84th St 6,500 13,500 300 West 85th St 7,000 15,000 302 West 85th St 5.000 15,000 304 West 85th St 8.000 13.500 314 V/est 85th St 35,000 65,000 316 West 85th St 7,000. 13,000 318 West 85th St 7,000 13.000 320 West 85th St 7.000 13.000 322 West 85th St 7.000 13.000 323 West 85th St 1.000 21.000 324 West 85th St 7.000 13,000 326 West 85th St 7,000 13,000 329 West 85th St 6,500 16,500 331 West 8Sth St 6,500 16.500 333 West 85th St 6,500 16,500 335 West 85th St 6,500 16,500 Z2,7 West 85th St 6,500 16,500 339-41 West 8Sth St 11.000 21,000 303 West 86th St i 11,500 20,500 304 West 86th St 12.500 2 ,000 306 West 86th St 12.500 21,000 308 West 86th St 12.000 20,000 310 West 86th St 12,000 20,000 312 West 86th St 11.000 18,500 314 West 86th St 13.000 21.500 316 West 86th St 12,500 21.000 318 West 86th St 12.500 2 .000 320 West 86th St 12.500 2 ,000 322 West 86th St 12,500 21.000 328 West 86th St :.. 1.000 55.000 332 West 86th St 11,000 20.000 334 West 86th St 11.000 20.000 336 West 86th St 11,000 20,000 337 West 86th St 11.000 20.000 338 West 86th St 12.000 20.000 339 West 86th St 11,000 20.000 341 West 86th St 11,000 20,000 Ratio 25:75 33:67 8:92 9:91 11:89 14:86 29:71 26:74 27:73 26:74 26:74 26:74 26:74 26:74 19:81 29:71 29:71 33:67 33:67 33:67 37:63 2>2,:67 33:67 35:65 33:67 32:68 25:75 37:63 35:65 35:65 35:65 35:65 35:65 5:95 35-65 35:65 28:72 28:72 28:72 28:72 28:72 33:67 36:64 2,7 -.6^ 37:62, 38:62 27:62, 37:63 38:62 37:63 37:63 37:63 27:62 2:98 35:65 35:65 35:65 35:65 27:62 35:65 35:65 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS OFF RIVERSIDE DRIVE—Continued Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address ' * > Ratio Improvements Land 343 West 86th St $11,000 $20,000 35:65 307 West 87th St 8,000 13,000 38:62 313 West 87th St 7,500 13,500 36:64 317 West 87th St 9,000 15,000 37:63 319 West 87th St 9,000 15,000 37:63 321 West 87th St 9,000 15,000 37:63 322 West 87th St 9,000 15,000 37:63 323 West 87th St 9,000 15,000 37:63 325 West 87th St 9,000 15,000 37:63 — West 87th St 1,000 58,000 2:98 $578,800 $1,350,000 307 West 309 West 310 West 311 West 312 West 313 West 314 West 315 West 317 West 318 West 319 West 320 West 321 West 323 West 324 West 325 West 326 West 329 West 307 West 332 West 303 West 305 West 307 West 309 West 311 West 313 West 317 West 319 West 321 West 323 West 325 West 327 West 329 West 331 West 333 West 335 West 336 West 337 West 339 West 341 West 343 West 345 West 346 West 349 West Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 82nd St $10,000 $15,000 40:60 82nd St 10,000 15,000 40:60 82nd St 13,000 13,000 50:50 82nd St 10,000 15,000 40:60 82nd St 12,000 12,500 49:51 82nd St 10,000 15,000 40:60 82nd St 13,000 13,000 50:50 82nd St 10,000 15,000 40:60 82nd St 14,000 15,000 48:52 82nd St 12,000 13,000 48:52 82nd St 14,000 15,000 48:52 82nd St 12,000 11.000 52:48 82nd St 14,000 15,000 48:52 82nd St 14,000 15,000 48:52 82nd St ; 12,000 11,000 52:48 82nd St 15,000 15,000 50:50 82nd St '14,000 18,000 44:56 82nd St 31,000 24,000 56:44 83rd St 10,000 14,000 42:58 83rd St 17,500 17,500 50:50 84th St 11,000 14,000 44:56 84th St 14,500 13.000 53:47 84th St 14,500 13.000 53:47 84th St 14,000 12,500 53:47 84th St 15,000 13,000 54:46 84th St 14,000 12,500 53:47 84th St 14,500 13,000 53:47 84th St 9,500 14.500 40:60 84th St 10,000 13,500 41:59 84th St 10,000 13,500 41:59 84th St 10,000 13.500 41:59 84th St 10,000 13.500 41:59 84th St 10,000 13.500 41:59 84th St 10,000 13,500 41:59 84th St 10,000 13.500 41:59 84th St 11.000 13,500 45:55 84th St 6,500 13.500 44:66 84th St 11,000 13,500 45:55 84th St 11,000 14.500 43:57 84th St 15,000 13,000 54:46 84th St 13,000 12.500 52:48 84th St 15,000 13,000 54:46 84th St 12,000 17,000 41:59 84th St 14,000 13,000 52:48 170 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS OFF RIVERSIDE BRIVE— Continued Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' ' Z 7 R^^'o Improvements Land 351 West 84th St $12,500 $12,500 50:50 353 West 84th St 12,500 2,500 50:50 355 West 84th St 12,500 12,500 50:50 357 West 84th St 15,000 13,000 54:46 m Wesl 85S St:: 15.000 14,000 52:48 311 West 85th St 14,500 13,500 52:48 III wilt 85th s!:::::..: 15,000 hooo 52:48 327 West 85th St 15.000 14,000 52:48 332 West 85th St 20,000 20,000 50:50 334 West 85th St 20,000 20,000 50:50 302 wesl 86!h s!: : . : : 12,000 19,000 38.7 .60 305 West 86th St 11.000 20,000 45:65 307 West 86th St 11.000 20,000 45:65 309 West 86th St 11,000 20,000 45:65 311 West 86th St 14,000 20,000 41:59 313 West 86th St 15,000 17,000 47:53 315 West 86th St 14.000 18.000 44:56 317 West 86th St 14.000 17,000 45:55 319 West 86th St 14.000 18,000 44:56 321 West 86th St 14,000 17,000 45:55 323 West 86th St 17,500 18,500 49:51 324 West 86th St 17,500 19,500 42:58 325 West 86th St 17,500 19,500 47:53 327 West 86th St 15.000 18,000 4S:.55 329 West 86th St 16.000 20.000 43:57 330 West 86th St H.OOO 15,000 42:58 331 West 86th St 16.000 18,000 47:53 333 West 86th St 16,000 20,000 ,,43:57 335 West 86th St 13.000 20,000 39.4:60 6 345 West 86th St 20,000 24,000 45:55 347 West 86th St 21,000 24,000 47:53 349 West 86th St 23,000 25,000 57:43 381 West 86th St 23,000 25,000 57:43 302 West 87th St 8,500 12,500 ,„ 40:60 303 West 87th St 9,000 14,000 39.1:60 9 304 West 87th St 8,500 12,500 ,„ 40.60 305 West 87th St 8,500 13,500 38.6;6L4 306 West 87th St 8,500 12.500 40:60 308 West 87th St 8,500 12,500 ,„ 40-60 309 West 87th St 8,500 13,500 38.6:61 4 310 West 87th St 8,000 12,000 ,„ 40.60 311 West 87th St 8,500 13.500 38.6:614 312 West 87th St 8,500 12.500 ,„ 40-60 315 West 87th St 8.500 13.500 38.6:6L4 324 W^est 87th St 11,000 15.000 42:58 326 West 87th St 11.000 15.000 42:58 327 West 87th St 14.000 12,000 54:46 328 West 87th St 11,000 15,000 42:58 329 West 87th St 13.000 11.500 53:47 330 West 87th St 11.000 15.000 42:58 331 West 87th St 13.000 11,500 53:47 332 West 87th St 11,000 15.000 42:58 333 West 87th St 14,000 12.000 54:46 334 West 87th St 11.000 15.000 42:58 335 West 87th St 14.000 14,000 50:50 336 West 87th St 11,000 15.000 42:.S8 337 West 87th St 14.000 14.000 50:50 338 West 87th St 11.000 15.000 42:58 339 West 87th St 18.000 13.500 57:43 340 West 87th St 11.000 15.000 42:58 341 West 87th St 19.000 15.000 56-44 342 West 87th St 11.000 15.000 42:58 343 West 87th St 19,000 15,000 56:44 171 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS OFF RIVERSIDE DRIVE— Concluded Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address > ' — ^ Ratio Improvements Land 344 We=t 87th St - $20,000 $15,000 57:43 345 West 87th St 19,000 15,000 56:44 346 West 87th St 21,000 15,000 58:42 347 West 87th St 19,000 15,000 56:44 348 West 87th St 20,000 15,000 57:43 349 West 87th St 19,000 15,000 56:44 350 West 87th St 20,000 15,000 57:43 351 West 87th St 19,000 15,000 56:44 352 West 87th St 20,000 15,000 57:43 353 West 87th St 19,000 15,000 56:44 355 West 87th St 19,000 15,000 56:44 302 West 88th St 14,000 15,000 48:52 303 West 88th St 11,000 14,000 40:54 304 West 88th St 15,000 15,500 49:51 305 West 88th St 12,000 13,000 48:52 306 West 88th St 15,000 15,500 48:52 307 West 88th St 12,000 14,000 46:54 308 West 88th St 15.000 15,500 48:52 309 West 88th St 11.000 14,000 44:56 3i0 West 88th St 15,000 15,000 50:50 311 West 88th St 17,500 13,500 56:44 312 West 88th St 15,000 15,500 48-.52 313 West 88th St 12,000 14.000 46:54 314 West 88th St 15.000 15.500 48:52 315 West 88th St 20,000 15.000 57:43 316 West 88th St 12,000 15,000 44:56 317 West 88th St 20.000 15,000 57:43 318 West 88th St 12.000 15,000 44:56 319 West 88th St 17,000 15,000 53:47 320 West 88th St 12.000 15,000 44:56 321 West 88th St 17,000 15,000 53:47 322 West 88th St 12,000 15.000 44:56 323 West 88th St 17.000 15.000 56:44 324 West 88th St 12,000 15.000 44:56 325 West 88th St 19.000 15,000 56:44 326 West 88th St 15.000 14,000 52:48 327 West 88th St 19,000 15,000 56:44 32« West 88th St 14,500 13,500 • 52:48 329 West 88th St 19,000 15,000 56:44 330 West 88th St 14,500 13,500 52:48 331 West 88th St 19.000 15,000 56:44 332 West 88th St 18,000 15,000 55:45 333 West 88th St 19,000 15,000 56:44 334 West 88th St 18.000 15.000 55:45 335 West 88th St 19.000 15.000 56:44 336 West 88th St 18.500 15.500 54:46 337 West 88th St 19.000 15.000 56:44 .US West 88th St 18.500 15.500 54:46 339 West 88th St 19.000 15.000 56:44 .340 West 88th St 18,500 15.500 54:46 .341 West 88th St 19.000 15.000 56:44 342 V/est 88th St 18.500 15.500 54:46 344 West 88th St 16.500 15.500 52:48 $2,289,500 $2,419,500 172 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS WEST OF CENTRAL PARK (Standard Composite Ratio: 38.84:61.66) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address ' * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 5 West 90th St $9,000 $15,000 38:62 7 West 90th St 9,000 15,000 38:62 9 West 90th St 9,000 15,000 38:62 11 West 90th St 9,000 15,000 38:62 13 West 90th St 9,000 15,000 38:62 15 West 90th St 9,000 15,000 38:62 17 West 90th St 7,500 14,000 35:65 19 West 90th St 7,500 13,500 36:64 20 West 90th St 8.500 14,000 38:62 21 West 90th St 7,500 13,500 36:64 28 West 90th St 8,000 15,000 35:65 30 West 90th St 7.000 15,000 32:68 32 West 90th St 8,000 15,000 35:65 34 West 90th St 7,000 15,000 32:68 38 West 90th St 7.000 15,000 32:68 40 West 90th St 8,000 15,000 35:65 53 West 90th St 8.000 14,000 36:64 54 West 90th St 8,000 14,000 36:64 55 West 90th St 8,000 14,000 36:64 56 West 90th St 8.000 14,000 36:64 57 West 90th St 8.000 14,000 36:64 58 West 90th St 8.000 14,000 36:64 59 West 90th St 8.000 14,000 36:64 60 West 90th St 8.000 14,000 36:64 61 West 90th St 6,000 14,000 30:70 63 West 90th St 6,000 14,000 30:70 65 West 90th St 6.000 14,000 30:70 28 West 91st St 7.500 13.500 36:64 30 West 91st St 7,500 13.500 36:64 32 West 91st St 7.500 13.500 36:64 34 West 91st St 9.500 13.500 38:62 36 West 91st St 9,500 13.500 38:62 38 West 91st St 9.500 13.500 38:62 40 West 91st St 9.500 13.500 38:62 42 West 91st St 7,500 13.500 36:64 44 West 91st St 7.500 13.500 36:64 45 West 91st St 7.000 15.000 32:68 46 West 91st S't 7.500 13.500 36:64 47 West 91st St 5.500 13.000 30:70 49 West 91st St 9,000 15,000 38:62 53 West 91st St 9.000 15.000 37:63 55 West 91st St 8.000 13,000 38-62 57 West 91st St 8.000 15.000 35:65 59 West 91st St 6.000 13.500 31:69 70 West 91st St 5.500 16.000 25-75 72 West 91st St 5.500 16.000 25:75 74 West 91st St 5,000 16.000 24:76 31 West 92nd St 3.000 11.000 21:79 33 West 92nd St 4,000 14.000 22:78 35 West 92nd St 4,000 14.000 22:78 37 West 92nd St 4.000 14.000 22:78 39 West 92nd St 4.000 14.000 22:78 41 West 92nd St 4.000 14.000 22:78 43 We^t 92nd St 4,000 14.000 22:78 45 West 92nd St 4.000 14.000 22:78 47 West 92nd St 4.000 14.000 22:78 49 West 92nd St 4.000 14.000 22:78 51 West 92nd St 4.000 14.000 22:78 53 West 92nd St 4.000 14.000 22:78 55 West 92nd St 4.000 14.000 22:78 57 West 92nd St 4,000 14,000 22:78 173 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS WEST OF CENTRAL PARK— Continued Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address 59 West 92nd St 61 West 92nd St 62 West 92nd St 63 West 92nd St 64 West 92nd St 65 West 92nd St 66 West 92nd St 67 West 92nd St 68 West 92nd St 69 West 92nd St 70 West 92nd St 71 West 92nd St 72 West 92nd St 8 West 93rd St 19 West 93rd St 21 West 93rd St 23 West 93rd St 25 West 93rd St 27 West 93rd St 29 West 93rd St 31 West 93rd St 33 West 93rd St 35 West 93rd St 45 West 93rd St 47 West 93rd St 49 West 93rd St 57 West 93rd St 58 West 93rd St 61 West 93rd St 63 West 93rd St 65 West 93rd St 67 West 93rd St 19 West 94th St 21 West 94th St 22 West 94th St 23 West 94th St 24 West 94th St 25 West 94th St 26 West 94th St 27 West 94th St 28 West 94th St 29 West 94th St 30 West 94th St 32 West 94th St 37 West 94th St 38 West 94th St 39 West 94th St 40 West 94th St 41 West 94th St 42 West 94th St 43 West 94th St 44 West 94th St 45 West 94th St 46 West 94th St 47 West 94th St 55 West" 94th St 57 West 94th St 59 West 94th St 61 West 94th St 62 West 94th St 63 West 94th St 64 West 94th St 65 West 94th St Improvements , . . $4,000 4,000 9,500 4,000 6,000 4,000 6,000 4,000 6,000 4,000 6,000 4,000 4,500 3,000 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 6,000 7,000 6,000 5,500 5,500 6,500 5,500 6,000 6,500 6.000 6,000 7,500 6,000 7,500 6,000 6,000 6,000 5,500 6,000 5,500 6,500 4,500 4.000 7.000 7,000 7,000 6,000 6,500 6.000 6,500 6,000 Land $14,000 14,000 16,500 14.000 15,000 14.000 15,000 14.000 15,000 14,000 15,000 14,000 14.500 18.000 13.500 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 14,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 9,000 13,000 9,000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10,000 10,500 12,000 12.500 11.000 11,000 11,500 11.500 10.500 11.000 10.500 11.000 12.500 12.000 12.500 12.000 12,500 12,000 11,000 12,000 11,000 13.500 9.500 9.500 13,500 13.500 13.500 13.000 12,000 12.000 12,000 12,000 Ratio 22:78 22:78 37:63 22:78 29:71 22:78 29:71 22:78 29:71 22:78 29:71 22:78 24:76 14:86 16:84 15:85 15:85 15:85 15:85 15:85 16:84 16:84 16:84 14:86 10:90 14:86 17:83 17:83 17:83 17:83 17:83 17:83 36:64 37:63 32:68 33:67 33:67 36:64 32:68 36:64 37:63 36:64 35:65 37:63 33:67 37:63 33:67 32:68 33:67 33:67 33:67 33:67 32:68 32:68 30:70 34:66 34:66 34:66 32:68 35:65 33:67 35:65 33:67 174 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS WEST OF CENTRAL FARK— Continued Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address ' ' Z 7 R^tio Improvements Land 66 West 94th St $6 50o $12000 35:65 67 West 94th St 6,500 3,500 32 68 68 West 94th St 6,500 12,000 35 65 69 West 94th St 6,500 3,500 32 68 70 West 94th St 6.500 2,000 35 65 71 West 94th St 6,500 3,500 32 68 72 West 94th St 6,500 12,000 35.6b 76 Weft 94th St . 6,000 11,000 3 :6 5 West 95th St 9,000 7,000 35 65 25 West 95th St 6,500 .000 37 63 ?7 West QSth St 6,500 11,000 37:63 I Weft 95th 1:::::::::: 6,500 11,000 3763 33 West 95th St 5,500 1,000 33:67 35 West 95th St 5,500 0.000 3.:65 37 West 95th St 5,500 0,000 35:65 39 West 95th St 5.500 0,500 34:66 40 West 95th St 5,000 2.500 29.71 42 West 95th St 4.500 12.000 27.73 43 West 95th St 6.500 1.000 37:63 44 West 95th St 5.000 13.000 28.72 45 West 95th St 7.000 1.500 38:62 46 West 95th St 4.500 2.500 26.74 47 West 95th St 7.000 1.500 38 62 48 West 95th St 4.500 2,000 27.73 49 West 95th St 7.000 1.500 38-62 50 West 95th St 4,500 2.000 27.73 51 West 95th St 7.000 .500 38:62 52 West 95th St 6.000 1.000 35 65 =;4 West 9Sth St 4.500 12.000 27 -.7 6 6 wS 95S St:::::: 4.500 12.500 26:74 58 West 95th St 4.000 1.000 27:73 60 West 95th St 6.000 2.000 33:67 62 We.st 95th St 6,500 2,500 34:66 64 West 95th St 4.000 1,000 27:73 66 West 95th St 4,500 2.500 26:74 67 West 95th St 5.500 1.000 33:67 68 West 95th St , 4.000 2.000 25.75 69 West 95th St 5.500 1.000 33.67 71 West 95th St 6.500 2.000 35:65 73 West 95th St 6.000 1.500 34:66 75 West 95th St 5.000 10,000 33:67 $950,500 $2,133,500 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' I T" Improvements Land 2 West 90th St $2,500 $19,000 4 West 90th St H'OOO 14.000 6 will 90th St 11.000 14.000 8 West 90th St .000 3,500 10 West 90th St .000 4.000 12 West 90th St .500 5.500 14 West 90th St .500 5.500 16 West 90th St 1.500 5 500 18 West 90th St 4,000 5,500 20 West 90th St 4,000 5,500 22 West 90th St 1,000 5.000 23 West 90th St 12,500 12.500 Ratio 57:43 44:56 44:56 45:55 44:56 43:57 43:57 43:57 47:53 43:57 42:58 50:50 175 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS WEST OF CENTRAL VARK— Continued Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address < * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 24 West 90th St $11,000 $15,000 42:58 25 West 90th St 13,000 13,000 50-50 26 West 90th St 11,000 15,000 42:58 27 West 90th St 13,000 13,000 50:50 29 West 90th St 9,500 14,500 40:60 31 West 90th St 10,000 15,000 40:60 33 West 90th St 9,500 14,500 40:60 35 West 90th St 10,000 15,000 40:60 36 West 90th St 10,000 15,000 40:60 37 West 90th St 9,500 14,500 40:60 39 West 90th St 10,000 15,000 40:60 41 West 90th St 9,500 14,500 40:60 42 West 90th St 7,000 15,000 40:60 43 West 90th St 10,000 15,000 40:60 44 West 90th St 18.000 15,000 55:45 45 West 90th St 9.000 14,000 39:61 46 West 90th St 18,000 15.000 55:45 47 West 90th St 9.500 12.500 43:57 48 West 90th St 19.000 15,000 56:44 49 West 90th St 9.500 12.500 43:57 50 West 90th St 19.000 15,000 56:44 51 West 90th St 9.500 13.000 42:58 52 West 90th St 19.000 15,000 56:44 17 West 91st St 8,500 13,500 38.64:61.36 19 West 91st St 9.500 13.500 41:59 21 West 91st St 9.500 13,500 41:59 22 West 91st St 9,500 13,500 41:.S9 23 West 91st St 9,500 13,500 41:59 24 West 91st St 9.500 13,500 41:59 25 West 91st St 9.000 13,000 41:59 26 West 91st St 9.500 13,500 41:59 27 West 91st St 10,000 13,500 43:57 29 West 91st St 11,000 14,000 44:56 31 West 91st St 9,000 14,000 39:61 33 West 91st St 11.000 14,000 44:56 35 West 91st St 8,500 13,500 38.64:61.36 37 West 91st St 11,000 14,000 39:61 39 West 91st St 11.000 14,000 44:56 41 West 91st St 9.000 14,000 39:61 43 West 91st St 9,000 14,000 39:61 48 West 91st St 9,500 13.500 41:59 50 West 91st St 9.500 13.500 41:59 51 West 91st St 8,500 13,500 38.64:61.36 52 West 91st St 9,500 13,500 41:.59 54 West 91st St 9,500 13,500 41:59 56 West 91st St 11,000 15,000 42:58 58 West 91st St 11.000 14,000 44:56 60 West 91st St 11,000 15,000 42:58 62 West 91st St 11,000 14,000 44:56 64 West 91st St 11.000 15,000 42:58 66 West 91st St 11,000 14,000 44:56 68 West 91st St 11,000 15,000 42:58 30 West 92nd St 8,500 12,500 40:60 32 West 92nd St 9,500 12,500 43:57 34 West 92nd St 9,500 12,500 43:57 36 West 92nd St 9.500 12.500 43:57 38 West 92nd St 9,500 12,500 43:57 40 West 92nd St 9,500 12.500 43:57 42 West 92nd St 8,000 12.500 42:58 44 West 92nd St 10.500 12.500 46:54 46 West 92nd St 9.000 13..000 41:51 48 West 92nd St 9.500 13.000 42:58 50 West 92nd St 9,500 13,000 42:58 176 I SECTION OF SIDE STREETS WEST OF CENTRAL PARK— Concluded Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' ' ; 7 R^tio Improvements Land 52 West 92nd St $9,500 $13000 42:58 54 West 92nd St 9,500 13,000 42.58 cfi West 92nd St 9,500 12,500 43:57 58 We 92nd St 8,500 12,500 40:60 60 We 92nd S . 20 500 21,500 49:51 11 West 94"h S 8,500 13,500 38.64:61.36 3 We 94h s :::::: 9,000 uooo 41:59 4 We 94h S :::::: SSOO 12,500 40:60 5 W?s 94t St 9,000 12.000 43:57 16 We 94h s ■;;:::::::: 8,500 12,500 40:6o 7 Wes 94h S . 9,000 12,000 43:57 8 Wes 94 h S 8,500 12,500 40:60 20 wes;9lS 11:::::::::::: 8,500 12,500 40:6o 31 West 94th St 7,500 8,500 47:53 33 West 94th St 7,500 8,500 47:53 34 West 94th St 7,500 11,500 39:61 35 West94lh St:::::::: ?,000 UOOO 41:59 36 West 94th St 7,500 1,500 39:61 49 West 94th St 9,500 13.500 41:59 51 Wes 94h S 9,500 13,500 41:59 53 west9llh §1::::::: 9,500 13500 41:59 60 West 94th St 12.000 16.500 42:58 7^ Wp<;t 94th St 9,000 13,000 41 .iV 74 We 94th S ":■■:: : H OOO 13.000 46:54 75 Wes 04h S 9,000 14,000 39:61 4 We 95ti; St: : . : : : 9.000 n.ooo 45 5 6 West 95th St 9,000 11.000 45:55 7 We 95th s::::::: . : 13,000 13.000 50:5o 8 Wes 95th St 9.000 11,000 45:.S5 9 We 95 S':: 14,000 12.000 54:46 10 Wes 95 h S 11,000 12,000 48:52 ? wS95tK s{::::::::::.: 12,000 12,000 50:5o 12 West 95th St 11,500 12.500 48:52 3 ws Is sl:::. :::::.: 12.500 12,500 5o:5o 14 West 95th St 11,500 2,000 48:52 16 West 95th St 11,500 3,000 47:53 17 West 95th St 9.500 12,000 44:56 18 Wesl9Sth §1 8,000 12,000 40:60 19 West 9Sth St 9.500 12,500 43:57 20 wS 95th St: 8,500 12,500 40:60 21 West 95th St 10,500 2,500 46:54 22 West 95th St 8,500 12,500 40:60 23 West 95th St 11,000 13,000 46:54 24 West 95th St 9.500 2,000 44:56 26 West 95th St 9,500 2,000 44:56 28 West 95th St 9.500 12.000 44:56 30 West 95th St 9,500 12.000 44:56 31 Wes 05th St . 7500 11.000 40:60 32 Weft 951!; sE:::::: 9.500 12.000 44:S6 34 West 95th St 9,500 12,000 44:56 36 West 9Sth St 9,500 12.000 44:56 38 West 95th St 9,500 12,000 44:56 i West 95th St::::::::.: 9,000 13,000 4i:59 65 West 95th St 9,000 13,000 41:59 $1,322,500 $1,726,500 177 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF LEXINGTON AVE. (Standard Composite Ratio: 38.34:61.66) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Ratio Address r ~ I "^ Improvements Land 157 East 70th St $8,000 ^000 19:81 174 East 70th St 3,500 5,500 18.8.. 175 East 70th St 6 000 5,000 29:71 177 East 70th St 3,000 ,000 2 :79 179 East 70th St 3,000 1,000 21:79 181 East 70th St 3,000 4,000 18:82 146 East 71st St 4,000 1,500 26:74 148 East 71st St 4.000 2,000 25:75 150 East 71st St 4,500 4,000 2278 151 East 71st St 3,500 2,000 23:77 152 East 71st St 5,000 4,500 26:74 153 East 71st St 3,500 1,000 24:76 154 East 71st St 6.000 8.000 25:75 155 East 71st St 14,000 8,000 36:64 156 East 71st St 6,000 8,000 25.75 158 East 71st St 9,000 8,000 33:67 159 East 71st St 7,000 8,000 28:72 160 East 71st St 5.500 14,500 27:73 64 Ea 7 s S 7,000 11,000 38.33:61.67 66 ifst 71st I: ::::::::::::: : 7:000 11,000 38.33:61.67 168 East 71st St 8,000 15,000 35.65 169 East 71st St 4,500 5,000 23:77 170 East 71st St 8,000 5,000 35:65 171 East 71st St 4,000 13,500 23:77 172 East 71st St 5,000 5,000 25:75 181 East 71st St 4.500 5.000 23.77 183 East 71st St 4.500 5,000 23:77 185 East 71st St 5,000 15,000 25:75 187 East 71st St 4.500 13.500 25:75 145 East 72nd St ' 5.000 18,000 22:78 152 East 72nd St 10.000 20.000 33:67 154 East 72nd St 6,000 7.000 26:74 156 East 72nd St 6.000 6.000 27:73 158 East 72nd St 6,000 18.500 24:76 160 East 72nd St 6.000 8,500 24:76 162 East 72nd St 6,000 18.000 25:75 164 East 72nd St 6.000 8.000 25:75 166 East 72nd St 6,000 18.000 2575 168 East 72nd St 6.000 6,000 27:73 170 East 72nd St 6.000 6,000 27:73 172 East 72nd St 6.000 6.000 27:73 174 Fast 72nd St 6.000 16.000 27:73 76 Fast 72nd sl. 6.000 16.000 27:7.3 178 East 72nd St 6.000 , 16,000 27:73 149 Fast 73rd St 42.000 70,000 37:63 153 Fast 73rd St 1.000 12,000 7:93 155 Fast 73rd St 1.000 12.000 7:93 57 East 73rd St 1.500 14.000 7:93 170 Fast 73rd St - 9,500 17.500 35:65 171 Fast 73rd St 2,000 2.500 14:86 172 Fast 73rd St 9,500 7.500 35:65 175 Fast 73rd St 2,500 2.500 14:86 180 Fast 73rd St 9.500 17.500 35:65 181 Fast 73rd St 2.000 12.500 4:86 183 Fpst 73rd St 2,500 12.500 17:83 184-6 Fast 73rd St: :::::::: 7.000 28,000 20:80 144 Fast 74th St 5,000 20,000 20:80 146 Fast 74th St 4.000 13.000 24:76 148 Fast 74th .St 4.000 12.000 26:74 150 Fast 74th St 4.000 11.000 27:73 ITs eS 74Jh sl:::::::::::: 5.000 13,000 28:72 178 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF LEXINGTON AVENUE— Continued Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address ' ' n Ratio Improvements Land 154 East 74th St 14,500 $12,500 28:72 155 East 74th St 4,000 12,000 25:75 156 East 74th St 4,500 12,500 28:72 157 East 74th St 5,000 12,000 29:71 158 East 74th St 4,500 12,500 28:72 159 East 74th St 4,000 12,000 25:75 168 East 74th St 9,000 19,000 34:66 170 East 74th St 9.000 19,000 32:68 172 East 74th St..... 9,000 19,000 32:68 148 East 78th St 3,500 9,500 27:73 149 East 78th St 3,000 9,500 24:76 150 East 78th St 4,000 11,000 27:73 151 East 78th St 3,500 9,500 27:73 152 East 78th St 4,000 11,000 27:73 153 East 78th St 2,500 7,000 26:74 154 East 78th St 4,000 11,000 27:73 155 East 78th St 2,500 7,000 26:74 156 East 78th St 4,000 11,000 27:73 157 East 78th St 3,000 11,000 21:79 158 East 78th St 4,000 11,000 27:73 159 East 78th St 2,500 11,000 18:82 160 East 78th St 4,000 11,000 27:73 161 East 78th St 2,500 11,000 18:82 163-5 East 78th St 6,000 22,000 21 :79 167 East 78th St 3,000 11,000 21:79 169 East 78th St 3,000 11,000 21 :79 171 East 78th St 3,000 11,000 21:79 173 East 78th St 3,000 11.000 21:79 175 East 78th St 3.000 11.000 21 :7Q 177 East 78th St 3.000 11.000 21-79 150 East 79th St 3.500 11,500 23:77 152 East 79th .St 3,500 10,500 25:75 154 East 79th St 4,000 12,000 25:75 158 East 79th St 8,000 14.000 36:64 160 East 79th St 8,000 14,000 36:64 162 East 79th St 8,000 14.000 36-64 164 East 79th St 8,000 14,000 36:64 168 East 79th St 10,500 17,500 37:63 170 East 79th St 4,000 13.000 23:77 172 East 79th St 4.000 13.000 23:77 174 East 79th St 4.000 13,000 23:77 176 East 79th St 4,000 13,000 23:77 178 East 79th St 8.500 17.500 33:67 180 East 79th St 3,500 11,500 23:77 182 East 79th St 3,500 11,500 23:77 184 East 79th St 3,500 11,500 23:77 $578,500 $1,570,000 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address -• * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 154 East 70th St $57,000 $38,000 59:41 155 East 70th St 12,000 17,000 41:59 158 East 70th St 17,500 17,500 50:50 159 East 70th St 12,000 17,000 41:59 160 East 70th St 16,500 17,500 49:51 161 East 70th St 14,000 18,000 44:56 162 East 70th St 16,500 17.500 49:51 163 East 70th St 19,000 23,000 45:55 179 SECTION OF SIDE STREETS EAST OF LEXINGTON AVENUE— Concluded Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address > ' ^ Ratio Improvements Land 164 East 70th St $14,500 $17,500 45:55 165 East 70th St 25,000 30,000 45:55 168-72 East 70th St 65,000 55,000 54:46 169 East 70th St 13,000 15,000 46:54 171 East 70th St 11,000 15,000 42:58 176 East 70th St 16,000 16,000 50:50 157 East 71st St 19,000 18,000 51:49 161 East 71st St 9,000 13,500 40:60 162 East 71st St 17,500 14,500 55:45 163 East 71st St 9,000 13,500 40:60 165 East 71st St 14,000 15,000 48:52 167 East 71st St 13,000 15,000 46:54 173-75 East 71st St 33,000 27,000 55:45 177 East 71st St 16,000 18,000 47:53 179 East 71st St 26,000 18,000 59:41 147 East 72nd St 12,000 18,000 40:60 149 East 72nd St 15,000 18,000 45:55 151 East 72nd St 15,000 18,000 45:55 180 East 72nd St 18,000 22,000 45:55 160-2 East 73rd St 45,000 46,000 49:51 164 East 73rd St 35,000 30,000 54:46 168 East 73rd St 15,500 17,500 47:53 173 East 73rd St 8,500 12,500 40:60 178 East 73rd St 15,500 17,500 47:53 182 East 73rd St 13,500 17,500 44:56 151 East 74th St 9.000 13,000 41:59 152 East 74th St 23,000 11,000 68:32 160 East 74th St 18,500 12,500 60:40 161 East 74th St 15,500 13,500 53:47 162 East 74th St 17,500 12,500 58:42 163 East 74th St ^ 14,500 13,500 52:48 164 East 74th St 17,500 12,500 58:42 165 East 74th St 14,500 13,500 52:48 166 East 74th St 17.500 12,500 58:42 167 East 74th St 14,500 13,500 52:48 169 East 74th St 14,500 13,500 52:48 162 East 78th St 11,000 11,000 50:50 164 East 78th St 13.000 15,000 46:54 166 East 78th St 13,000 15,000 46:54 $872,000 $866,000 180 Ratio SECTION IN WASHINGTON SQUARE DISTRICT (Standard Composite Ratio: 38.34:61.66) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased - Assessed Values Address ' I p Improvements Land =5 79 W 9th St $10,000 $109,000 8:92 6 West' 9th St 2,000 22,000 8:92 8 We 9h S 2500 28,500 8.92 10 We 9th S 1500 22,000 6:94 I We 9th S : 2000 15,500 11:89 12 Wes 9h St 3000 27,000 10:90 ? Wes 9h S 2000 15,500 11:89 4 W?s 9th S 1500 20,500 7:93 l^^S'lhi;::::::::::::: •• 2:000 15,500 ii:89 l^^S^Ehl:::::::::::: 3000 20000 13:8 24 West 9th St 2,500 20,000 11.89 25 West 9th St 2,500 16,000 3 87 26 West 9th St 2,500 20,000 1189 97 West 9th St 3,500 14,000 ZU.»U i We 91, s '::::: 2:500 20,000 ii:89 29 Wes 9 S 2.500 14,000 15:85 iwS«;l::;::;:::: 2,500 20,™ ii89 MWe 9h|-':::: 2,500 14,500 15:8S MwesJgShil 2,000 20,000 9:9 cc W("it 9th St 2,500 14,500 15.K3 36Wes9hS ,, 2000 20,000 9:91 ^7wS9thS 2500 14.S0O 15:85 S wS't 9* 11: ;::::::::::;;: ; woo i4,5oo i5:85 tswSg*!::::::::: 2,5(» iwoo um 2wS'tl!l:sl::;::::::: 2,500 20,000 ii:89 53 West 9th St 2,500 13,500 16:84 ^4 Wes 9h S 2,500 13,500 16:84 55WS9SI;::::::::: 2,000 17,000 11:89 56 West 9th St 2,500 13,500 16:84 57 We 9 S 2,000 17,000 11:89 58 Wes 9 S 2,500 13,500 16:84 59 We 9 S . 2,000 17,000 11-89 eow^sl^SI::::::::::: 3.000 20000 13 87 61 West 9th St 500 7.000 3 97 63 West 9th St 500 7.000 3 97 65 West 9th St 500 17.000 3:97 67West9thS 1.000 17.000 6:94 7 We iSh si :: 2,700 24.300 10:90 8 We lOth S ■■■; 10000 28.000 26:74 9 We OS 3.000 25.500 11-89 10 We OS :::::::: lo.ooo 28.000 26:74 1 13 West 10th St ". 20.000 55.000 27 -.73 II West lOth St . 18,000 34.000 35-65 4 wS Oh S 17,500 36.500 33:67 15 We Oh St :: . 8.000 26.000 24:76 ewsSiShsl:::::: is.ooo 37.000 33:67 17 West lOth St 9.500 25,500 27:73 8 Wes Oh S ■■■■■.■■. 15,000 28.000 35:65 9 W?t Oh S 9,600 25.500 26:74 20 We^ Oh St 5.000 18.000 22:78 2? wesl loth I;::::: 10,000 26.000 28:72 ?7 Wpc^t 10th St 5.000 17,500 zz-./a iwSiottl:::::::: woo 28,500 2575 94 West 10th St 5.000 17.500 22:78 is weslJolKs;: :::::: 5,500 22,000 20:80 181 SECTION OF WASHINGTON SQUARE DISTRICT— Continued Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address 26 Wes 27 Wes 28 Wes! 29 Wes 30 Wes 32 Wes 33 Wes 34 Wes; 35 Wes 36 Wes 37 Wes 39 Wes 40 Wes 41 Wes 43 Wes 44 Wes 46 Wes 48 Wes 56 Wes 58 Wes 59-67 West 10th St 69 Wes 10 Wes 11 Wes 13 Wes 14 Wes 15 Wes 16 Wes- 17 Wes 18 Wes- 19 Wes 20 Wes 21 Wes 22 Wes 23 Wes 24 Wes 25 Wes' 26 Wes' 28 Wesi 30 Wes 32 Wes 34 Wes 35 Wes 37 Wes 39 Wes 40 Wes 41 Wes 42 Wes 43 Wes 44 Wes 46 Wes 48 Wes 49 Wes 50 Wes 51 Wes 52 Wes 54 Wes 60 Wes 62 Wes 64 Wes 66 Wes 68 Wes 71 Wes 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 0th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. 1th St. Improvements , . . $4,000 5,500 4,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 3,500 6,000 3,000 5,000 6,500 3,500 4,000 5,500 3,500 4,500 4,500 2,000 2,500 4,000 12,000 2,000 3.000 3,000 1,500 3,500 1,000 3,500 1,000 3,500 1,000 3,500 2,000 3,500 2,000 3,500 2,000 3,500 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 2,500 2,500 3,000 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,000 3.500 4,000 4,000 1,000 3,000 1,000 2,000 2.000 2,000 2,000 2.500 2.500 2.500 3,000 Land 1 16,000 22,000 16,000 22,000 16.000 16,000 21,500 16,000 17,500 17,500 20,500 20,500 19.000 20,500 20,500 17,500 17,500 17.500 17,500 17,500 88,000 12.000 <26.000 22,000 16,500 19,000 18.500 19,000 19.000 19.000 19,000 19,000 19.000 19.000 19.000 19.000 19.000 19.000 21,000 19.000 18.500 18.500 21.500 20,500 20,000 17,500 21.000 17.500 21.000 17.500 17.500 17.500 22,000 17,500 22.000 18,500 18.500 18.500 19,000 18,500 18.500 18.500 21.000 Ratio 20:80 20:80 20:80 19:81 20:80 20:80 14:86 27-73 15:85 22:78 24:76 15:85 17:83 21:79 15:85 20:80 20:80 10:90 12:88 19:81 10:90 14:86 10:90 12:88 5:95 16:84 5:95 16:84 5:95 16:84 5:95 16:84 10:90 16:84 10:90 16:84 10:90 16:84 19:81 17:83 18:82 18:82 10:90 11:89 13:87 17:83 11:89 17:83 13:87 17:83 19:81 15:85 4:96 15:85 4:96 10:90 10-90 10:90 10:90 12:88 12:88 12:88 13:87 $518,300 182 $2,660,800 MOUNT MORRIS PARK SECTION (Standard Composite Ratio: 88.34:61.66) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address ^ " ~ 7^ Improvements Land 104 West 119th St $4,700 $9,300 106 West 119th St 5700 9.300 108 West 119th St 5.700 9,300 110 West 119th St ^.700 9,300 112 West 119th St 5.700 9.300 114 West 119th St 6,600 10,400 116 West 119th St ^.700 9,300 118 West 119th St 5,700 9,300 120 West 119th St 5700 9,300 122 West 119th St 5,700 9,300 146 West 119th St 4.700 9,300 147 West 119th St 5.600 10,400 148 West 119th St 4.700 9,300 149 West 119th St 5,600 10,400 150 West 119th St 4,700 9,300 151 West I19th St 5,600 10,400 152 West 119th St 4,700 9.300 153 West 119th St 5,600 10,400 154 West 119th St 4,700 9,300 155 West 119th St 4.600 10.400 156 West 119th St 4,700 9,300 158 West 119th St 4.200 8.800 3 West 120th St 7,000 5,000 5 West 120th St 7.000 3 000 7 West 120th St 6,500 3,500 9 West 120th St 5,000 ,500 11 West 120th St 5,000 ,500 13 West 120th St 5,500 1,500 15 West 120th St 6,000 3.000 17 West 120th St 5,500 3,000 19 West 120th St 6,000 3,000 21 West 120th St 5,500 3,000 23 West 120th St 6.000 3.000 25 West 120th St 6,000 13,000 102 West 120th St 5,700 9,300 104 West 120th St 5,700 9,300 106 West 120th St 5,700 9,300 108 West 120th St 5.700 9,300 110 West 120th St 5,700 9,300 127 West 120th St 6.600 0.900 129 West 120th St 6.600 0,900 131 West 120th St 6.100 10,100 134 West 120th St 3.700 9,300 136 West 120th St 3.700 9,300 138 West 120th St 3700 9,300 140 West 120th St 3,200 8,800 142 West 120th St 3,700 9,300 144 West 120th St 3,700 9,300 146 West 120th St 3700 9,300 148 West 120th St 3,400 8,600 150 West 120th St 3 400 8,600 152 West 120th St 3,400 8,600 155 West 120th St 3,500 8,500 157 West 120th St 3.500 8.500 159 West 120th St 2.500 9.000 14 West 121st St 5.500 2.500 16 W^est 121st St 6.500 2,500 18 West 121st St 6.500 2,500 20 West 121st St 5.500 2.500 22 West 121st St 6.500 2,500 26 West 121st St 7,500 12,500 Ratio 33:67 38:62 38:62 38:62 38:62 38.82:61.18 38:62 38-62 38:62 38:62 33:67 35:65 33:67 35:65 33:67 35:65 33:67 35:65 33 :67 31:69 33:67 32:68 32:68 31.1:61.9 32:68 30:70 30:70 32:68 32-68 30:70 32:68 30:70 32:68 32:68 38:62 38:62 38:62 38:62 38:62 38:62 38:62 36:64 28:72 28:72 28:72 27:73 28:72 28:72 28:72 28:72 28:72 28:72 29:71 2971 28:72 31:69 34:66 34:66 31:69 34:66 37:63 183 MOUNT MORRIS PARK SECTIOISI— Continued Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address , * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 101 West 121st St 16,500 $10,500 38.24:61.76 105 West 121st St 4,200 7,800 35:65 111 West 121st St 4,200 7,800 35:65 135 West 121st St 6,200 10,800 36:64 137 West 121st St 6,200 10,800 36:64 139 West 121st St 6,200 10,800 36:64 141 West 121st St 6,200 10,800 36:64 143 West 121st St 6,800 110,800 38.28:61.72 145 West 121st St 6,800 10,800 38.28:61.72 147 West 121st St 6,100 10,400 37:63 149 West 121st St 6,100 10,400 37:63 159 West 121st St 5,700 9,300 38:62 164 West 121st St 4,200 7,800 35:65 4 West 122nd St 9,000 16,000 36:64 6 West 122nd St 6,500 12,500 34:66 7 West 122nd St 7,500 12,500 37:63 8 West 122nd St 7,000 13,000 35:65 9 West 122nd St 6,000 12,000 33:67 11 West 122nd St 6,000 12,000 33:67 12 West 122nd St 7,000 13,000 35:65 13 West 122nd St 6,000 12,000 33:67 14 West 122nd St 7,000 13,000 35:65 15 West 122nd St 6,000 12,000 33:67 16 West 122nd St 7,.500 12,500 37:63 17 West 122nd St 6,000 12,000 33:67 19 West 122nd St 6,000 12,000 33:67 21 West 122nd St 7,500 12.500 37:63 104 West 122nd St 3,500 11,000 29:71 106 West 122nd St 5,200 8,800 37:63 108 West 122nd St 4,700 9,300 38:62 110 West 122nd St 4,700 9,300 38:62 112 West 122nd St 4,700 9,300 38:62 114 West 122nd St 4,700 9,300 38:62 116 West 122nd St 4.700 9,300 38:62 118 West 122nd St 4.700 9,300 38:62 120 West 122nd St 5.700 9,800 37:63 122 West 122nd St 5,700 9,300 38:62 124 West 122nd St 5,700 9.800 37:63 126 West 122nd St 5,700 9,800 37:63 128 West 122nd St 5,700 9,800 37:63 130 West 122nd St 5,700 9.800 37:63 138 West 122nd St 5,000 9,000 36:64 140 West 122nd St 5,000 9,000 36:64 142 West 122nd St 6,100 10,900 36:64 144 West 122nd St 5.000 9,000 36:64 146 West 122nd St 5,000 9,000 36:64 148 West 122nd St 5,000 9,000 36:64 2 West 123rd St 6,000 13,000 32:68 3 West 123rd St 5,000 12,500 29:71 4 West 123rd St 4,000 10.500 28:72 5 West 123rd St 4,000 12,000 25:75 6 West 123rd St 4,000 10.500 28:72 7 West 123rd St 5,000 12.000 29:71 8 West 123rd St 4,000 10.500 28:72 9 West 123rd St 3,000 12,000 20:80 10 West 123rd St 4.000 10.500 28:72 11 West 123rd St 1.500 7.500 17:83 12 West 123rd St 4,000 10,500 28:72 13 West 123rd St 1.500 7.500 17:83 14 We.st 123rd St 4,000 10,500 2872 16 West 123rd St 3,500 11,000 2476 17 West 123rd St 2.500 10.500 19:81 18 We.st 123rd St 4.000 10.500 28:72 184 MOUNT MORRIS PARK SECTION— Continued Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address ' ' ' Ratio Improvements Land 19 West 123rd St $3,500 $10,500 25:75 20 West 123rd St 4,000 0,500 28 72 o-\ West 123rd St 2,500 10,500 iv «l i w si lird il:: ::::::::::: : 4:000 10,500 28 72 24 West 123rd St 4,000 10,500 28:72 26 West 123rd St 4,000 ,500 26:74 102 West 123rd St 5,000 1,000 31:69 103 West 123rd St 5.500 10,500 34:66 104 West 123rd St 5,600 0,400 35:65 106 West 123rd St 1,600 10,400 13:87 108 West 123rd St 5 600 0,400 35.65 110 West 123rd St 5 600 0.400 35.65 112 West 123rd St 5.600 0,400 35:65 113 West 123rd St 6.100 0,400 f-.ej 114 West 123rd St 5.600 0.400 35.65 116 West 123rd St ^,600 0.400 35-65 117 West 123rd St 6,100 10,400 37:63 118 West 123rd St 5.600 0.400 35-65 119 West 123rd St 6,100 10,400 37:63 120 West 123rd St 5.600 10.400 35:65 121 West 123rd St 5,900 0,100 37:63 122 West 123rd St 5,600 10.400 35:65 123 West 123rd St 5,300 9,700 35:65 124 West 123rd St 900 8,600 10:90 125 West 123rd St 5.500 10.000 35:65 126 West 123rd St 900 8.600 10:90 127 West 123rd St 5.300 9.700 35:65 ii West 123rd s?^::::: $900 8.600 10:% 129 West 123rd St 5.800 9.700 37.63 130 West 123rd St 5,000 14,000 26:74 132 West 123rd St 3.700 8,800 30:70 134 West 123rd St 3 700 8.300 31:69 136 West 123rd St 3,400 9, 00 27:73 138 West 123rd St 1,600 8.400 6:84 140 West 123rd St 1,400 8,600 4:86 142 West 123rd St 1.400 8.600 14:86 144 West 123rd St 3.400 9. 00 27:73 145 West 123rd St 6.100 10.400 37:63 146 West 123rd St 3.700 8.800 30:70 148 West 123rd St 3.700 8,800 30:70 149 West 123rd St 5.600 10,400 35:65 150 West 123rd St 3,700 8,800 30:70 152 West 123rd St 3.700 8.300 31:69 153 West 123rd St 4.700 8.800 35:65 154 West 123rd St 3.800 8.200 32-68 155 West 123rd St 4.700 8.800 35:65 156 West 123rd St 4.500 7.500 37:6.3 157 West 123rd St 4.700 8.800 35:65 158 West 123rd St 3.300 7.200 31:69 159 West 123rd St 4.700 9.800 32:68 160 West 123rd St 3.300 7.200 31-69 161 West 123rd St 3.400 8.100 30-70 162 West 123rd St 3.300 7.200 31:69 163 West 123rd St 4.000 10,000 29:71 164 West 123rd St 3.300 7.200 3 :69 166 West 123rd St 3.300 7.200 31:69 168 West 123rd St 3.500 8.000 30:70 54 West 124th St 2,000 2,000 4:86 56 West 124th St 2.500 2.000 7:83 58 West 124th St 2.500 12.000 17:83 60 WestmhSt.:: 2.000 12,000 14:86 78 West 124th St 3.000 15.000 17:83 185 MOUNT MORRIS PARK SECTION— Continued Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address / '' \ Improvements Land 1 Mt. Morris Ave., W 2 Mt. Morris Ave., W 3 Mt. Morris Ave., W 4 Mt. Morris Ave., W 5 Mt. Morris Ave., W 10 Mt. Morris Ave., W 11 Mt. Morris Ave., W 12 Mt. Morris Ave., W 13 Mt. Morris Ave., W 14 Mt. Morris Ave., W 26 Mt. Morris Ave., W 27 Mt. Morris Ave., W 28 Mt. Morris Ave., W 29 Mt. Morris Ave., W 30 Mt. Morris Ave., W 32 Mt. Morris Ave.. W 33 Mt. Morris Ave., W 34 Mt. Morris Ave., W Ratio $9,000 $24,000 27:73 7,000 15,000 32:68 7,000 15,000 32:68 7,000 15,000 32:68 7,000 15,000 32:68 11,000 26,000 30:70 9,000 28,000 24:76 8,000 18,000 31:69 8,000 18,000 31:69 10,000 20,000 33-67 1,500 14.500 9:91 3,000 14,000 28:82 3,000 14,000 28:82 3,000 14,000 28:82 3,000 22.000 12:88 10,000 20,000 33:67 10,000 20,000 33:67 10,000 20,000 33:67 $1,015,200 $2,237,200 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased 105 West 1 107 West 1 109 West 1 111 West 1 113 West 1 115 West 1 117 West 1 119 West 1 121 West 1 123 West 1 125 West 1 127 West 1 129 West 1 131 West 1 1.33 West 1 135 West 1 ]37 West 1 US West 1 147 West 1 149 West 1 151 West 1 153 West 1 155 West 1 157 West 1 103 West 1 105 West 1 107 West 1 109 West 1 111 West 1 113 West 1 115 West 1 117 West 1 119 West 1 121 West 1 123 West 1 124 West 1 Assessed Values Address r '" Improvements 118th St $9,600 118th St 10,600 118th St 10.600 118th St 10.600 118th St 10,600 118th St 10,600 118th St 10,600 118th St 10,600 118th St 10,600 118th St 10,600 118th St 10,600 118th St 10,600 118th St 10,600 118th St 10,600 118th St 10,600 118th St 10,600 118th St 10,600 118th St 8,700 118th St 8,700 118th St 9,700 118th St 9,200 118th St 8.700 118th St 8.700 118th St 8.700 119th St 6.400 119th St 7,400 119th St 6,400 119th St 8.200 119th St 8,200 119th St 8,200 119th St 7.700 119th St 10.600 119th St 10,600 119th St 10,600 119th St 10,600 119ai St 6,600 Ratio Land $10,400 48:52 10,400 50:. SO 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10.400 50:50 10.400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 9,300 48:52 9,300 48:52 9,300 51:49 8,800 51:49 9,300 48-52 9,300 48:52 9,300 48:52 8,600 43:57 8,600 47:54 8,600 43:.S7 9.800 46:54 9,800 46:54 9,800 46:54 9,300 45:55 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:. 50 9,300 42:58 186 MOUNT MORRIS PARK SECTION— Continued Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values 125 West 119th 126 West 119th 127 West 119th 128 West 119th 129 West 119th 130 West 119th 131 West 119th 132 West 119th 133 West 119th 134 West 119th 135 West 119th 136 West 119th 137 West 119th 138 West 119th 139 West 119th 140 West 119th 141 West 119th 142 West 119th 143 West 119th 144 West 119th 145 West 119th 107 West 120th 109 West 120th 111 West 120th 112 West 120th 113 West 120th 114 West 120th 115 West 120th 116 West 120th 117 West 120th 118 West 120th 119 West 120th 120 West 120th 121 West 120th 122 West 120th 123 W>st 120th 124 West 120th 125 West 120th 126 West 120th 128 West 120th 133 West 120th 135 West 120th 137 West 120th 139 West 120th 141 West 120th 143 West 120th 145 West 120th 147 West 120th 149 West 120th 151 West 120th 153 West 120th 154 West 120th 156 West 120th 158 West 120th 160 West 120th 162 West 120th 164 West 120th 1 West 121st 3 West 121st 4 West 121st 5 West 121st 6 West 121st 7 West 121st Address r ' Improvements St $10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 10,600 6,600 7,100 7,100 7,600 7,100 7,600 7,100 7,600 8,100 7,200 7,100 7.200 7,600 7.600 8,100 7.200 8,100 7,200 7,200 6.600 6.600 6,600 6,600 6,600 6.700 6.700 6.700 6.700 6.700 6.700 6.400 6.400 6.400 6.400 6,400 6,400 10.000 9,500 9.500 8.500 9.500 9,000 Ratio Land 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:. 50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:. SO 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 50:50 10,400 38.82:61.18 10,400 42:58 10,400 42:58 10,400 42:.S8 10,400 42:58 10,400 42:58 10,400 42:58 10,400 42:58 10,400 44:56 9,800 42:58 10,400 41:59 9,800 42:58 10.400 42:. 58 10.400 42-58 10.400 44-56 9.800 42:58 10.400 44:56 9.800 42:58 9,800 42:58 10,400 38.82:61.18 10,400 38.82:61.18 10,400 38.82:61.18 10,400 38.82:61.18 10.400 38.82:61.18 9.800 41 :59 9.800 41:59 9.800 41:.59 9,800 41:59 9,300 42:58 9,300 42:58 8,600 43:57 8.600 43:57 8.600 43:. 57 8.600 43:57 8.600 43:57 8,600 43:57 13.000 43:57 12.500 43:57 12,500 43:57 12.500 40:60 12.500 43:57 13,000 41:59 187 8 West i: 9 West i: 10 West L 11 West i: 12 West i: 13 West i: 15 West h 17 West i: 19 West i: 21 West i: 102 West i: 103 West \: 104 West \: 106 West i: 107 West i: 108 West i: 109 West i: 110 West i: 112 West 1^ 113 West i: 115 West 1^ 116 West 1^ 117 West i: 118 West i: 119 West Iz 120 West \: 121 West K 122 West K 123 West i: 124 West i: 125 West i: 126 West i: 127 West 1^ 128 West \1 129 West 1^ 130 West U 131 West 1^ 132 West 1^ 133 West U 134 West U 136 West i: 138 West U 140 West i: 142 West 1^ 144 West \: 146 West li 148 West Iz 150 West 1^ 151 West i: 152 West 12 153 West 12 154 West i: 155 West 12 156 West 12 157 West 12 158 West 12 160 West 12 162 West 12 10 West 1 18 West 1 105 West 1 107 West 1 109 West 1 MOUNT MORRIS PARK SECTION— Continued Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased. Assessed Values Address ■/ " \ Ratio Improvements Land 121st St $9,500 $12,500 43:57 121st St 8,000 12,000 40:60 121st St 9,500 12,500 43:57 121st St 8,500 12,500 40:60 121st St 9,500 12.500 43:57 121st St 8,000 12,000 40:60 121st St 8,500 12,500 40:60 121st St 8,500 12,500 40:60 121st St 8,500 12,500 40:60 121st St 9,000 13,000 41:59 121st St 8,500 11,500 42:58 121st St 5,900 9,100 39:61 121st St 7,600 10,400 42:58 121st St 8,100 10,900 43:57 121st St 5,900 9,100 39:61 121st St 8,100 10,900 43:57 121st St 5,900 9,100 39:61 121st St 7,600 10,400 42:58 121st St 11,600 11,400 50:50 121st St 5,900 9,100 38.83:61.17 121st St 6,600 10,400 38.83:61.17 121st St 9,600 10,400 48:52 121st St 6,600 10,400 38.83:61.17 121st St 10,100 10,400 49:51 121st St 6,600 10,400 38.83:61.17 121st St 9,600 10,400 48:52 121st St 6,600 10,400 38.83:61.17 121st St 10,600 10,400 50:50 121st St 6,600 10,400 38.83:61.17 21st St 10,600 10,400 50:50 121st St 6,600 10,400 38.83:61.17 121st St 9,600 10,400 49:51 121st St 6.600 10,400 38.83:61.17 121st St 10,600 10,400 50:50 121st St 6,600 10,400 38.83:61.17 121st St ,10,600 10,400 50:50 121st St 6,600 10,400 38.83:61.17 121st St 10 100 10.400 49:51 121st St 6,600 10.400 38.83:61.17 121st St 9.100 10,400 47:53 121st St 6,600 10,400 38.82:61.18 121st St 6,600 10,400 38.82:61.18 121st St 6.600 10,400 38.82:61.18 121st St 6,600 10,400 38.82:61.18 121st St 6,600 10,400 38.82:61.18 121st St 7,700 9,300 45:55 121st St 7,700 9,300 45:55 121st St 7,700 9,300 45:55 121st St 6.200 9.800 38.75:61.25 121st St 7,700 9,300 45:55 121st St 6.200 9.800 38.75:61.25 121st St 7,700 9,300 45:55 121st St 6,200 9,800 38.75:61.25 121st St 6,700 9,300 42:58 121st St 6.200 9.300 40:60 121st St 6.700 9,300 42:58 121st St 6,200 8.800 41:59 121st St 6.200 8,800 41:59 122nd St 9.500 13.500 41:59 122nd St 8,600 5.400 61.4:38.6 122nd St 6.200 9.800 38.75:62.25 122nd St 6.200 9.800 38.75:62.25 122nd St 6.200 9.800 38.75:62.25 188 MOUNT MORRIS PARK SECTION— Concluded Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ^ " ^ Ratio Improvements Land 111 West 122nd St $6,200 $9,800 38.75:62.25 115 West 122nd St 8,600 10,400 45:55 131 West 122nd St 9,000 14,000 44:56 132 West 122nd St 6,400 9,600 40.60 133 West 122nd St 6.400 8,600 43:57 134 West 122nd St 7,500 9,300 44:56 135 W^est 122nd St 6,400 8,600 43:57 136 West 122nd St 6,300 9,200 40:60 137 West 122nd St 6,400 8,600 43:57 139 West 122nd St 6,400 8,600 43:57 141 West 122nd St 6,400 8,600 43:57 143 West 122nd St 6,400 8,600 43:57 147 West 122nd St 7,600 10,400 42:58 150 West 122nd St 7,200 9,800 42:58 151 West 122nd St 6,600 10,400 38.78:61.22 152 West 122nd St 9,200 9,800 48:52 154 West 122nd St 7,200 9,800 42:58 156 West 122nd St 6,700 9,300 41:59 158 West 122nd St 6,700 9,300 41:59 160 West 122nd St 7,200 9,800 42:58 162 West 122nd St 7,200 9.800 42:58 164 West 122nd St 7,200 9,800 42:58 165 West 122nd St 7,500 9.500 44:56 28 West 123rd St 5,500 7,500 42:56 30 West 123rd St 5,500 7,500 42:56 6 Mt. Morris Ave., W 11,000 16.000 41 -59 7 Mt. Morris Ave., W 11,000 16,000 41 :.59 8 Mt. Morris Ave., W 11,000 16,000 41 :S9 9 Mt. Morris Ave., W 11,000 16,000 41 :59 $1,579,300 $1,963,900 II. THE BRONX SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION NINE, BOROUGH OF THE BRONX (Standard Composite Ratio: 38.71:61.29) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address t ^ n Ratio Improvements Land 286 Willis Ave $5,000 $10,000 33:67 288 Willis Ave 6,000 10,000 37:63 290 Willis Ave 3,500 10,000 26:74 292 Willis Ave 3,500 10,000 26:74 294 Willis Ave 2,700 6,000 31:69 296 Willis Ave 2,500 6,000 29:71 298 Willis Ave 4,000 9,000 31:69 340 Willis Ave 4,000 7,000 36:64 342 Willis Ave 4,000 7,000 36:64 352 Willis Ave 5,000 9,000 36:64 409 East 141st St 1,500 4,500 25:75 $41,700 ,500 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address < * n Ratio Improvements Land 403 East 139th St R500 $3,000 60:40 405 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 407 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 409 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 411 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 413 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 415 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 417 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 419 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 421 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 423 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 425 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 427 East 139th St 3.000 3.000 50:50 429 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 431 East 139th St 3.000 3,000 50:50 433 East 139th St 3.000 3.000 50:50 435 East 139th St 3,000 3.000 50:50 437 East 139th St 3.000 3.000 50:50 439 East 139th St 3.000 3.000 50:50 441 East 139th St 3,000 3.000 50:50 443 East 139th St 3,000 3.000 50:50 445 East 139th St 3.000 3.000 50:.S0 447 East 139th St 3.000 3.000 50:50 449 East 139th St 3.000 3.000 50:50 451 East 139th St 3.000 3,000 50:50 453 East 139th St 3.000 3,000 50:50 455 East 139th St 3,000 3.000 50:50 457 East 139th St 3.000 3.000 50:50 459 East 139th St 3.000 3.000 50:50 461 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 463 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 465 East 139th St 3.000 3.000 50:50 467 East 139th St 3,000 3.000 50:50 469 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 471 East 139th St 3.000 3,000 50-50 473 East 139th St 3,000 3,000 50:50 475 East 139th St 3.000 3,000 50:50 190 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' " 7 Ratio Improvements Land 477 East 139tli St 13,000 479 East 139th St 3,000 481 East 139th St 3,000 483 East 139th St 3,000 485 East 139th St 3,000 487 East 139th St 3,000 489 East 139th St 3,000 491 East 139th St 3,000 493 East 139th St 3,000 495 East 139th St 3,000 497 East 139th St 3,000 499 East 139th St 3,000 501 East 139th St 4,500 404 East 140th St 3,500 406 East 140th St 4,500 408 East 140th St 3,000 410 East 140th St 3.000 412 East 140th St 3,000 414 East 140th St 3,000 416 East 140th St 3,000 418 East 140th St 3,000 420 East 140th St 3,000 422 East 140th St 3,000 424 East 140th St 3,000 426 East 140th St 3,000 428 East 140th St 3,000 430 East 140th St 3,000 432 East 140th St 3,000 434 East 140th St 3,000 436 East 140th St 3,000 438 East 140th St 3,000 440 East 140th St 3,000 442 East 140th St 3,000 444 East 140th St 3,000 446 East 140th St 3,000 448 East 140th St 3,000 450 East 140th St 3,000 452 East 140th St 3,000 454 East 140th St 3,000 456 East 140th St 3,000 458 East 140th St 3,000 460 East 140th St 3,000 462 East 140th St 3.000 464 East 140th St 3,000 466 East 140th St 3.000 468 East 140th St 3,000 470 East 140th St 3,000 472 East 140th St 3.000 474 East 140th St 3.000 476 East 140th St 3,000 478 East 140th St 3.000 480 East 140th St 3.000 482 East 140th St 3.000 484 East 140th St 3.000 486 East 140th St 3.000 488 East 140th St 3.000 490 East 140th St 3.000 492 East 140th St 3,000 494 East 140th St 3.000 496 East 140th St 3.000 498 East 140th St 3,000 500 East 140th St 3.000 502 East 140th St 3.000 504 East 140th St 4,500 191 $3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 60:40 2,000 64:36 3,000 60:40 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:. SO 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:. 50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:. SO 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3.000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50-50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:. SO 3,000 50:50 3.000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3.000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3.000 50:50 3,000 50:50 3.000 50:50 3,000 60:40 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address , — ^ , Ratio Improvements Land 344 Willis Ave $4,000 346 Willis Ave 4 000 348 Willis Ave 4000 350 Willis Ave 4000 405 East 141st St 1400 407 East 141st St 1400 411 East 141st St 3800 413 East 141st St 2,500 415 East 141st St 2,500 417 East 141st St 2 500 419 East 141st St 2^500 421 East 141st St 2,500 423 East 141st St 2 700 425 East 141st St 2 700 427 East 141st St 2^700 429 East 141st St 2 700 431 East 141st St 2 700 433 East 141st St 2 700 435 East 141st St 2 700 437 East 141st St 2 700 439 East 141st St 2,700 441 East 141st St 2,700 443 East 141st St 2 700 445 East 141st St 2700 447 East 141st St 2 700 449 East 141st St 2,700 451 East 141st St 2 700 453 East 141st St '. 2,700 455 East 141st St 2,700 457 East 141st St 2,700 459 East 141st St 2,700 461 East 141st St 2,700 463 East 141st St 2,700 465 East 141st St 2,700 467 East 141st St 2700 469 East 141st St 2"700 471 East 141st St 2 700 473 East 141st St 2700 475 East 141st St '. . 2 700 477 East 141st S't 2 700 479 East 141st St 2,700 4S1 East 141st St 2 700 483 East 141st St 2 700 485 East 141st St 2 700 487 East 141st St 2*700 489 East 141st St 2 700 404 East 142nd St 2 850 406 East 142nd St 2'.750 408 East 142nd St 2.700 410 East 142nd St 2 700 412 East 142nd St 2,700 414 East 142nd St 2,700 416 East 142nd St 2,700 418 East 142nd St 2 700 420 East 142nd St 2.700 422 East 142nd St 2 200 424 East 142nd St 2 200 426 East 142nd St 2 200 428 East 142nd St 2^600 430 East 142nd St 3,000 432 East 142nd St 2 600 434 East 142nd St 2 600 436 East 142nd St 2 600 438 East 142nd St 2,700 192 $6,000 40:60 6,000 40:60 6,000 40:60 6,000 40:60 2,200 39:61 2,200 39:61 3,000 56:44 3,000 45:55 3,000 45:55 3.000 45:55 3,000 45:55 3,000 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,400 44:56 /3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3.300 45:55 3.300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3.300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3,300 45:55 3.300 45:55 3.300 45:55 3.300 45:55 2.850 50:50 2,950 48:52 3.000 47:53 3.000 47:53 3,000 47:53 3,000 47:53 3,000 47-53 3,000 47:53 3,000 47:53 3,000 42:58 3,000 42:58 3,000 42:58 2,700 49:51 2,700 53-47 2,700 49:51 2,700 49:51 2,700 49:51 3,000 47:53 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ^ ' ; 7 Ratio Improvements Land 440 East 142nd St $2,700 $3,000 47:53 442 East 142nd St 2,700 3,000 47:53 444 East 142nd St 2,700 3,000 47:53 446 East 142nd St 2,700 3,000 47:53 448 East 142nd St 2,700 3,000 47:53 450 East 142nd St 2,700 3,000 47:53 452 East 142nd St 2,700 3,000 47:53 454 East 142nd St 2,700 3,000 47:53 456 East 142nd St 2,600 3,100 46:54 458 East 142nd St 2,600 3,100 46:54 460 East 142nd St 2,600 3,100 46:54 462 East 142nd St 2,600 3,100 46:54 464 East 142nd St 2,600 3,100 46:54 468 East 142nd St 2,600 3,100 46:54 470 East 142nd St 2,600 3, 00 46:54 472 East 142nd St 2,600 3,100 46:54 474 East 142nd St 2,600 3,100 46:54 476 East 142nd St 2,500 3,200 44:56 478 East 142nd St 2,500 3,200 44:56 480 East 142nd St 2,500 3,200 44:56 482 East 142nd St 2,500 3,200 44:56 484 East 142nd St 2,500 3,200 44:56 486 East 142nd St 2,500 3,200 44:56 488 East 142nd St 2.500 3,200 44:56 490 East 142nd St 2,500 3,200 44:56 492 East 142nd St 2,500 3,200 44:56 494 East 142nd St 2,500 3,200 44:56 496 East 142nd St 2,500 3,200 44:56 498 East 142nd St 2,500 3,100 45:55 - East 142nd St 2,500 3,100 45:55 500 East 142nd St 2,500 3,200 44:56 $563,600 $609,500 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION TEN, BOROUGH OF THE BRONX (Standard Composite Raiio: 38.71:61.29) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address r- ^ ^ Ratio Improvements Land 1224 Union Ave $2,500 $5,000 33:67 1226 Union Ave 2,500 5,000 33:67 1228 Union Ave 2,500 5,000 33:67 1230 Union Ave 2,500 5,000 33:67 1232 Union Ave 2,500 5,000 33:67 1333 Prospect Ave 3,300 6,700 33:67 East 156th St (S.S., bet. Kelly and Beck) 3,500 6.000 2>7:6Z 818 East 169th St 2,200 3,500 38.6:61.4 822 East 169th St 2,200 3,700 37:63 824 East 169th St 2,200 3,600 38:62 826 East 169th St 2,200 3,600 38-62 828 East 169th St 2,200 3,500 38.6-61.4 $30,300 $55,600 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address , • n Ratio Improvements Land 1234 Union Ave $2,200 $2,800 44:56 1236 Union Ave 2,200 2,800 44:56 952 East 156th St 5,000 4,000 56-44 953 East 156th St 5,000 4,000 56:44 956 East 156th St 5,000 4,000 56:44 957 East 156th St 5,000 4,000 56:44 958 East 156th St 5,000 4,000 56:44 959 East 156th St 5,000 4,000 5644 960 East 156th St 5,000 4,000 56:44 961 East 156th St 5,000 4,000 56:44 962 East 156th St 5,000 4,000 56:44 963 East 156th St 5,000 4,000 56:44 966 East 156th St 5,000 4,000 56:44 967 East 156th St .5,000 4,000 56-44 969 East 156th St 7,500 6,000 56:44 811 East 168th St 4,400 3,200 58:42 813 East 168th St 4,400 3,200 58:42 815 East 168th St 4,400 3,200 58:42 817 East 168th St 4,400 3,200 58:42 819 East 168th St 4.400 3,200 58:42 821 East 168th St 4,400 3,200 58:42 802 East 169th St 2,900 2,700 52:48 804 liast 169th St 2,900 2,600 53:47 806 East 169th St 2,800 2,400 54:46 808 East 169th St 2,800 3,300 46:54 810 East 169th St 2.800 3,100 47:53 812 East 169th St 2,800 2,900 49:51 814 Ea.st 169th St 2,800 2,800 50:50 816 East 169th St 2,800 3,000 48:52 820 East 169th St 2,300 3,600 38.98:61.02 830 East 169th St 2,200 3,300 40:60 — East 169th St 7,000 6,500 52:48 1240 East 169th St 4,100 5,900 41 :59 712 Beck .St 5,000 3.200 58:42 714 Beck St 5,000 3.200 58:42 716 Beck St 5.000 3.200 58:42 718 Beck St 5,000 3,200 58:42 719 Beck St 5,000 3,500 59:41 720 Beck St 5.000 3,200 58:42 194 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address < '"' > Improvements Land 721 Beck St $5,000 722 Beck St 5,000 723 Beck St 5.000 724 Beck St 5,000 725 Beck St 5,000 726 Beck St 5,000 751 Beck St 5,000 752 Beck St 5,500 753 Beck St 5,000 754 Beck St 5,500 755 Beck St 5,000 756 Beck St 5,000 757 Beck St 5,000 758 Beck St 5,000 759 Beck St 5,000 760 Beck St 5,500 761 Beck St 5,000 762 Beck St 5,500 lez Beck St 5.000 764 Beck St 5.000 765 Beck St 5.000 766 Beck St 5,000 767 Beck St 5,000 768 Beck St 5,500 769 Beck St 5,000 770 Beck St 5,500 771 Beck St 5,500 772 Beck St 5.000 773 Beck St 5,500 774 Beck St 5,000 775 Beck St 5,500 n(i Beck St 5,500 IV Beck St 5,500 778 Beck St 5,500 730 Kelly St 8,000 732 Kelly St 8,000 734 Kelly St 6,000 736 Kelly St 6,000 738 Kelly St 5,500 740 Kelly St 6,000 742 Kelly St 4,500 744 Kelly St 4,500 746 Kelly St 4,500 748 Kelly St 4,500 750 Kelly St 5,000 752 Kelly St 5,000 754 Kelly St 8.000 756 Kelly St 8,000 $426,000 $395,500 Ratio $3,500 59:41 3,200 58:42 3,500 59:41 3,200 58:42 3,500 59:41 3,200 58:42 4,000 56:44 4,000 58:42 4,000 56:44 4,000 58:42 4,000 56:44 4,000 56:44 4,000 56:44 4,000 56:44 4,000 56:44 4,000 58:42 4,000 56:44 4,000 58:42 4,000 56:44 4,000 56:44 4,000 56:44 4,000 56:44 4,000 56:44 4,000 58:42 4,000 56:44 4,000 58:42 4,000 58:42 4,000 56:44 4,000 58:42 4,000 56:44 4,000 58:42 4,000 58:42 4.000 58:42 4.000 58:42 4,500 64:36 4,500 64:36 4,500 57:43 4,500 57:43 4,500 55:45 4,500 57:43 4,500 50:50 4,500 50:. 50 4,500 50:50 4,500 50:50 4,500 53:47 4,500 53:47 4,500 64:36 4.500 64:36 195 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION ELEVEN, BOROUGH OF THE BRONX (Standard Composite Raiio: 38.71:61.29) Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address i * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 1335 Findlay Ave $2,400 $5,600 30:70 1348 Teller Ave 2,200 4,800 31:69 — Washington Ave. (E.S., 181-182d Sts.) 5,000 11,000 31:69 1234 Washington Ave 1,700 2,800 38:62 2136 Washington Ave 1,700 2,800 38:62 2138 Washington Ave 1,700 2,800 38:62 2140 Washington Ave 1.500 4,500 25:75 2146 Washington Ave 1,900 4,600 29:71 2148-48'/ Washington Ave 1,600 6,900 19:81 2152 Washington Ave 2,300 5,200 31 :69 2156 Washington Ave 2,700 4,800 36:64 2164 Washington Ave 2,500 4,000 36:64 2166 Washington Ave 2,500 4,000 38.46:61.54 2168 Washington Ave 2,000 4,000 38.46:61.54 2172-74 Washington Ave 3,000 8,000 27:73 2179 Washington Ave 1,700 3,100 35:65 2181 Washington Ave 1,700 3,300 34-66 2163 Bathgate Ave 2,700 4,300 38.5:61.5 2165 Bathgate Ave 2,700 4,300 38.5:61.5 2167 Bathgate Ave 2,700 4,300 38.5:61.5 $46,200 $95,100 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address : * > Ratio Improvements Land 1300 Findlay Ave $4,900 $2,100 70:30 1302 Findlav Ave 5,000 2,000 71 :29 1304 Findlay Ave 3,600 2,400 60:40 1306 Findlay Ave 3,200 2,000 60:40 1308 Findlay Ave 3,200 2,000 60:40 1310 Findlay Ave 3,200 2,000 60:40 1312 Findlay Ave 3.200 2,000 60:40 1314 Findlay Ave 3,500 2,500 58:42 1316 Findlay Ave 3,500 2,500 58:42 1318 Findlay Ave 3,000 2,000 60:40 1320 Findlay Ave 3,000 2,000 60:40 1322 Findlay Ave 3,000 2,000 60:40 1324 Findlay Ave 3,000 2,000 60:40 1326 Findlay Ave 3,500 2,500 60:40 1304 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 1306 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 1308 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 1310 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 1312 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 1314 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 1315 Teller .'Xve 3,300 2,200 60:40 1316 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 1317 Teller Ave 3,300 2,200 60:40 1318 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 1319 Teller Ave 4,300 2,700 61:39 1320 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 1322 Teller Ave 3,600 2,400 66:34 1323-25 Teller Ave 9,900 6;100 62:38 1324 Teller Ave 3,400 2,400 60:40 1326 Teller Ave 3,400 1,600 60:40 196 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address i * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 1327 Teller Ave $4,200 $2,800 60:40 1328 Teller Ave 3,400 1,600 60:40 1329 Teller Ave 4,200 2,800 60:40 1330 Teller Ave 3,400 1,600 60:40 Teller Ave 5,700 2,800 67:33 1332 Teller Ave 3,600 2,400 60:40 Teller Ave 5,700 2,800 67:33 1334 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 Teller Ave 5,700 2,800 67:33 1336 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 Teller Ave 4,700 2,800 63:37 1338 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 1340 Teller Ave 2,100 2,400 47:53 1342 Teller Ave 4,100 2,400 63:37 1346 Teller Ave 4,600 2,400 66:34 1354 Teller Ave 6,100 2,400 72:28 1356 Teller Ave 6,100 2,400 72:28 1358 Teller Ave 3,300 2,400 58:42 1360 Teller Ave 6,600 2,400 73:27 1364 Teller Ave 3,100 2,400 56:44 1366 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 1368 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 1369 Teller Ave 3,000 3,000 50:50 1370 Teller Ave 2,400 1,600 60:40 1371 Teller Ave 3,000 3,000 50:50 1372 Teller Ave 2,800 2,400 54:46 1373 Teller Ave 3,000 3,000 50:50 1374 Teller Ave 2,100 2,400 47:53 1379 Teller Ave 5,500 2,500 69:31 Teller Ave 5,800 7,200 45:55 1386 Teller Ave 2,600 1,400 65:35 1388 Teller Ave 4,800 2,700 64:36 351 East 169th St 6.200 3,300 65:35 353 East 169th St 3,300 2,200 60:40 355 East 169th St 3,300 2,200 60:40 357 East 169th St 3,300 2,200 60:40 359 East 169th St 3,300 2,200 60:40 361 East 169th St 3,300 2,200 60:40 363 East 169th St 3,300 2,200 60:40 365 East 169th St 3,300 2,200 60:40 367 East 169th St 3,300 2,200 60:40 392 East 170th St 4,700 1,300 78:22 394 East 170th St 4,700 1,300 78:22 396 East 170th St 4.800 2.700 64:36 1291-95 Clay Ave 9,000 9.000 50:50 1297 Clay Ave 3,000 3.000 50:50 1299 Clay Ave 3.300 2,200 60:40 1301 Clay Ave 3.200 2,300 58:42 1303 Clay Ave 3,200 2,300 58:42 1305 Clay Ave 4,200 2,300 65:35 1307 Clay Ave 4.300 2.200 66:34 1309 Clay Ave 4.200 2,300 65:35 1311 Clay Ave 3.000 3,000 50:50 1315 Clay Ave 2,500 3,000 45:55 1317 Clay Ave 2,100 1,900 53:47 1319 Clay Ave 2,100 1.900 53:47 1321 Clay Ave 2.100 1.900 53:47 1323 Clay Ave 2.500 2,800 47:53 1325 Clay Ave 2,700 2.800 49:51 1327 Clay Ave 2,300 1.900 55:45 1329 Clay Ave 2,100 1,900 52:48 1331 Clay Ave 2,100 1,900 52:48 1337 Clay Ave 3,200 2,800 53:47 1339 Clay Ave 3.200 2,800 53:47 197 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased , , , Assessed Values Address , — — >- Improvements 1341 Clay Ave $2,100 1343 Clay Ave 2,100 1345 Clay Ave 2,100 1347 Clay Ave 2100 1349-51 Clay Ave 4,400 1353 Clay Ave 3,200 1355 Clay Ave 3,200 1357 Clay Ave 2,800 1359 Clay Ave 2,800 1361 Clay Ave 2.800 1363 Clay Ave 2,200 1365 Clay Ave 2,200 1367 Clay Ave 2 200 1369 Clay Ave " ' ' 4'700 1371 Clay Ave 4,700 1377 Clay Ave 4,500 1379 Clay Ave 4,500 1381 Clay Ave 4,500 1383 Clay Ave ■" 5,200 1385 Clay Ave 4,000 1387 Clay Ave 4,000 182nd St. (S.S., Washington to Bathgate). 4,700 4,500 4,200 ~ 4,200 2132 Washington Ave 3,700 2150 Washington Ave 3,500 2158 Washington Ave 2,700 2160 Washington Ave ] 2^700 2162 Washington Ave 2,600 2176 Washington Ave 4400 2178 Washington Ave 4'l00 2180 Washington Ave 4,000 2182 Washington Ave 4,000 2153 Bathgate Ave 6,000 2155 Bathgate Ave 2.000 2157 Bathgate Ave.* 2^000 2159 Bathgate Ave 2^000 2161 Bathgate Ave 2^000 2169 Bathgate Ave '..\ 5*200 2171 Bathgate Ave 3^200 2173 Bathgate Ave 3^200 2175 Bathgate Ave 4,000 2177 Bathgate Ave 4^000 Land $1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 3,600 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 2,700 1,800 1,800 1,800 2,800 2,800 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,800 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,800 3,800 5,000 3,800 3,800 3,900 2,900 2,900 3,000 3,200 6,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 4,300 4,300 4,300 5,000 6,000 Rati 53:47 53:47 53:47 53:47 55:45 54:46 54:46 51:49 51:49 46:54 55:45 55:45 55:45 63:37 60:40 69:31 69:31 69:31 74:26 67:33 67:33 70:30 69:31 68:32 70:30 49:51 41:59 42:58 42:58 40:60 59:41 57:43 56:44 51:49 50:50 40:60 40:60 40:60 40:60 55:45 43:57 43:57 44:56 40:60 $486,000 $370,700 198 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION TWELVE. BOROUGH OF THE BRONX (The district consists of parts of assessments blocks: 3294 — between Bainbridge and Briggs avenues and between East 194th and East 196th streets — ; 3298 — between Bainbridge and Briggs avenues and between Bedford Park Boule- vard and East 201st Street — ; and 3299 — between Perry and Briggs avenues and between Mosholu Parkway South and East 201st Street.) (Standard Composite Ratio: 38.71:61.29) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address ' ' ; 7 Ratio Improvements Land 265 Bedford Park Boulevard $5,500 $11,500 32:68 Briggs Ave. E.S., bet. Bedford Park Blvd. and E. 201st St. G.Goldberg 3,200 6,600 33:67 James Wilson 3,400 6,600 34:66 Bainbridge Ave. (W.S.. bet. Bedford Park Blvd. and E. 201st St.) ^ ^^^ „ ^- Cath. McCormack 3,200 3,200 32:68 $15,300 $27,900 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address <■ '^ "Z "^ Improvements Land 2654 Briggs Ave $3,500 $2,500 Brieo-s Ave 3,500 2,300 Briles Ave 3,500 2,300 Briggs Ave:: 3,500 2,300 Brie-e-s Ave 3,500 2,300 — Brigs Ave::::.: 3,500 2,300 Briggs Ave 3,500 2,300 Briggs Ave 5.800 2,300 Brills Ave 5,800 2,300 Briggs Ave 5.800 2,300 Briggs Ave 5,800 2,300 Briggs Ave 5,800 2,300 Brills Ave 5,800 2,300 Brigs Ave 5,800 2,300 Briggs Ave 5 800 2 300 Brio-o-s Ave 5,800 2,300 2686 Brills Ave: : : : 5,800 2,400 2958 Briggs Ave 3,300 3,000 Brills Ave 3,300 3,000 2962 Briggs Ave 4,400 6,600 Briggs Ave 4.200 3,300 2972 Briggs Ave 5,500 3,300 Briggs Ave 4,200 3,300 2976 Briggs Ave 5,400 6,600 2984 Briggs Ave 4.000 3,300 2655 Bainbridge Ave 3.700 2,700 Bainbridge Ave 3,700 2,700 Bainbridge Ave 3.700 2,700 Bainbridge Ave 3,700 2,700 Bainbridge Ave 3.700 2.700 Bainbridge Ave 3.700 2,700 Bainbridge Ave 3,700 2,700 Bainbridge Ave 3.700 2,700 Bainbridge Ave 5,000 2,700 2671 Bainbridge Ave 6,100 2,700 2673 Bainbridge Ave 5,600 2.700 2677 Bainbridge Ave 5,000 2,700 199 Ratio 58:42 60:40 60:40 60:40 60:40 60:40 60:40 72:28 72:28 72:28 72:28 72:28 72:28 72:28 72:29 72:28 71:29 55:45 55:45 40:60 56:44 62:38 56:44 40:60 55:45 58:42 58:42 58:42 58:42 58:42 58-42 58:42 58:42 64:36 69:31 67:33 65:35 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ( * \ Ratio Improvements Land 2679 Bainbridge Ave $5,000 $2,800 64 :36 2681 Bainbridge Ave 5,000 2,800 64 -.Zd Bainbridge Ave 3,500 2,800 56:44 Bainbridge Ave 5,800 3,600 62:38 Bainbridge Ave 5,800 3,600 62:38 Bainbridge Ave 7,500 7,200 51 :49 2951 Bainbridge Ave 6,400 3,600 64:36 Bainbridge Ave 8,000 3,600 69:31 Bainbridge Ave 6,300 7,200 47:53 Bainbridge Ave 3,500 3,300 51 :49 Bainbridge Ave 3,600 3,200 53:47 Bainbridge Ave 6,700 4,800 58 :42 Bainbridge Ave 6,700 4,800 58:42 Bainbridge Ave 6,700 4,800 58:42 Bainbridge Ave 4,800 3,200 60:40 Bainbridge Ave 4,800 3.200 60:40 267 Bedford Park Boulevard 9,000 9,000 50 :50 East 201st St 7,500 6,000 56:44 East 201st St 4,000 2,700 60:40 East 201st St 4,800 2,700 64:36 East 201st St 3,500 2,700 56:44 East 201st St 3,500 2,700 56:44 East 201st St 3,500 2.700 56:44 East 201st St 4,500 7,000 39:61 East 201st St 4,400 3,600 55:45 311 East 201st St 5,000 3,100 62:38 East 201st St 5,000 3,000 63:37 East 201st St 5,000 3,100 62:38 317 East 201st St 6,500 6,000 52:48 East 201st St 3,400 2,600 57:43 East 201st St 3,400 2,200 61 :39 East 201st St 3,400 2,200 61:39 East 201st St 3,200 3,600 47 :53 East 201st St 3,700 3,600 51:49 East 201st St 3,000 2,700 53:47 East 201st St 5,000 6.000 45:55 302 Mosholu Parkway 7,000 6,000 54:46 Mosholu Parkway 6,000 8,500 41:59 Mosholu Parkway 7,000 6,500 52:48 314 Mtosholu Parkway 7,000 6,200 53:47 Mosholu Parkway 11,000 10,000 52:48 2999 Perry Ave 7,300 4,200 dZ-.Zl 3003 Perry Ave 8,200 8,800 48:52 $403,000 $296,100 200 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION FIFTEEN, BOROUGH OF THE BRONX (The district consists of parts of assessment blocks: 4048 — between Rhinelander and Morris Park avenues and between Unionport Road, Victor and Amethyst streets — ; 4051 — between Rhinelander and Morris Park avenues and between Cruger and Holland avenues.) (Standard Composite Raiio: 38.71:61.29) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased None Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' * ^ Ratio Improvements Land Mead St $1,900 $1,800 51:49 Mead St 3,300 1,200 73:27 Mead St 1,700 1,450 54:46 Mead St 2,500 1,200 68:32 Mead St 4,000 1,200 77:23 Mead St. 4,000 1,200 77:23 Mead St 4,000 1,200 77-23 Mead St 3,300 1,200 73:27 Mead St 3,300 1,200 71:29 Mead St 3,300 1,200 71:29 Mead St 1,600 1,200 57:43 A'lead St 2,200 1,200 73:27 Mead St 2,200 1,200 73:27 Unionport Road 2,800 1,600 64:36 Unionport Road 2,700 1,600 63:37 Unionport Road 1.500 1,600 48:52 Unionport Road 3,000 2,500 55:45 Unionport Road 2,600 1,200 68:.32 Baker Ave 3,000 1,200 71:29 Baker Ave 3,400 1,200 74:26 Baker Ave 3,400 1,200 74:26 Baker Ave 1,400 1,200 54:46 Baker Ave 4,200 1.200 78:22 Baker \ve 4.200 1,200 78:22 Baker Ave 2,000 1,200 62:38 Baker Ave 3,200 1,200 73:27 Baker Ave 2.800 1.200 70:30 Baker Ave 2.800 1,200 70:30 Baker Ave 2,800 1,200 70:30 Baker Ave 2,800 1,200 70:30 Baker Ave 2.800 1,200 70:30 Baker Ave 7,000 1,800 80:20 Morris Park Ave 4,800 5,200 50:50 Morris Park Ave 3,500 3.500 50:50 Morris Park Ave 5,100 2,900 64:36 Morris Park Ave 1,500 1,900 44:56 Morris Park Ave 1,500 1,900 44:.S6 Morris Park Ave 1.500 1,900 44:56 Morris Park Ave 4.000 2.900 58:42 Morris Park Ave 4,900 4,300 53:47 Morris Park Ave 6.500 2,500 72:28 Morris Park Ave 11,000 3,500 76:24 Amethyst St 2,500 1,000 65:35 Amethvst St 3,200 1,100 74:26 Amethvst St 3,200 1,100 74:26 Amethvst St 3,200 1,100 74:26 Amethyst St 3,800 1,200 76:24 Amethyst St 3.200 1.200 73:27 Amethvst St 3,000 1,200 71:29 AmethVst St 3,800 1,200 76:24 AmethVst St 4,000 1,200 77:23 Amethyst St 3,200 1,200 73:27 Amethyst St 3,200 1,200 73:27 201 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' ^ I T^ Improvements Land Amethvst St ^3,200 $1,200 Amethyst St 3,200 ,200 Amethyst St 3 200 ,800 Rhmelander Ave 3,200 1,000 Rhinelander Ave 3,200 1,000 Rhmelander Ave 3,000 ,000 Rhmelander Ave 3,700 1.000 Rhinelander Ave UOO 1,200 Victor St 2,700 1.700 Vcor S 2,200 1,200 Vcor S 2,200 1.200 vicor s :':: 2200 1.200 Vcor S 2.200 1.200 vco s :::::::::::: 2,200 1.200 Vcor S 2,800 1,200 Vco s ::::::::::: 3200 1,200 Victor S 3,200 1,200 VicoJ St'"':: . 3,200 1,200 v! or It 3,200 1.200 Victor St 3,500 1.400 Vctor S 2,000 1.500 Cn,°er Ave"".:.. 3,000 1.200 Cr Ser Ave 1.800 1,200 Cr Ser Ave 3,000 1.200 Cr ^^er Ave 2,800 1,200 Cr S Ave""".: 3,200 1,200 Cn^er Ave 3,200 1,200 cruleri;:::::.: 3,300 uoo g;;S^:: ::•::::::::::::::::::: S S Cr ger Ave': : 3.300 1.200 Cr ler Ave 3,300 1.200 Cr'ler Ave .. 3,300 1.200 crif Ave.::::: 3,300 uoo Cru-er Ave 3,300 1,200 Cr ger Ave . 3,200 1.200 cruKr Ave.::::::::::::: 3,200 uoo Cnijrer Ave 3,200 1,200 Cruger Ave 3,200 1,150 Cruder Ave 3,200 1,150 Cruger Ave 3,200 1,000 Cruier Ave 3,200 900 Holland Ave 3,200 1,200 Holland Ave 3,200 1,200 Holland Ave 3,200 1,200 Holland Ave 3,200 1.200 Holland Ave .3,200 1.200 Holland Ave 3,400 1,200 Holland Ave 3,400 1,200 Holland Ave 3,400 1.200 Holland Ave 3,200 1,200 Holland Ave 3,200 1,200 Holland Ave 3,000 1,200 Holland Ave .3,000 1.200 Holland Ave 3,000 1,200 Holland Ave 3,000 1.200 Holland Ave 1.800 1,200 Holland Ave 2,900 1.200 Holland Ave .3,100 1,200 Holland Ave 3,000 1,200 Holland Ave 3,100 1,200 Holland Ave .3,300 1,200 Holland Ave 3,500 1.200 Holland Ave 3,500 1,200 $369,100 $162,550 202 Ratio 73:27 73:27 64:36 76:24 76:24 75:25 73:27 52:48 61:39 73:27 73:27 73:27 73:27 73:27 70:30 73:27 73:27 73:27 73:27 71:29 57:43 71:29 60:40 71:29 70:30 73:27 73:27 73-27 73:27 73:27 73-27 73:27 73:27 73:27 73:27 73-27 73:27 73:27 74:26 74:26 76:24 78:22 73:27 73 -.27 73:27 73:27 73:27 74:26 74:26 74:26 73:27 73:27 71:29 71:29 71:29 71:29 60:40 71:29 72-28 71:29 72:28 66:34 74:26 74:26 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION SEVENTEEN, BOROUGH OF THE BRONX (The district consists of parts of assessment blocks: 4837 — between White Plains Road and Barnes Avenue and between East 223rd and East 224th streets—; 4838 — ^between White Plains Road and Barnes Avenue and between East 224th and East 225th streets — ; 4847 — between Barnes and Bronxwood avenues and between East 222d and East 223rd streets — ; and 4848 — between Barnes and Bronxwood avenues and between East 223rd and 224th streets.) (Standard Composite Ratio: 38.71:61.29) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address Ratio Improvements East 224th St $1,400 East 224th St 1,400 White Plains Road 2,900 White Plains Road 2,900 East 222d St 1,300 Barnes Ave 1,800 East 223d St 1,000 East 223d St 800 $13,500 $5,100 22:78 4,800 23:77 7,500 28:72 5,500 35:65 2,200 37:63 2,900 38.298:61.702 1,800 36:64 1,800 31:69 $31,600 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Address Barnes Ave... Barnes Ave... East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. East 223d St. Assessed Values Ratio 76-24 Improvements $5,200 Land $1,600 3,500 1,050 1,000 1,050 1,050 1.050 1,050 1,100 2,200 1,200 1,200 2,700 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 900 900 900 900 900 1,800 2,700 900 2,700 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 10,000 74:26 4,350 81:19 4,400 81:19 4,350 81:19 4 350 81:19 4,350 81:19 4.350 81:19 3,600 77:23 4,100 65-35 4,000 77:23 3,700 76:24 3,800 58:42 2 200 52:48 2 200 69:31 2,600 72:28 900 47:53 800 47:53 3,600 80:20 1,600 64:36 2 700 75-25 1 800 67:33 1,800 50:50 1,800 40:60 2.500 74:26 3,000 53:47 3,400 77:23 3.400 77:23 3,400 77:23 3 400 77:23 3,600 78:22 3,600 78:22 3.400 77:23 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Address Assessed Values Improvements East 224th St $4,500 East 224th St ^. 2,100 East 224th St 2,100 East 224th St 2,600 East 224th St 2,100 East 224th St 2,500 East 224th St 3,700 East 224th St 3,700 East 224th St 3,700 East 224th St 3,700 East 224th St 2,100 East 224th St 2,100 East 224th St 2,100 East 224th St 2,100 East 224th St 3,600 East 224th St 2,200 East 224th St 2,200 East 224th St 2,200 East 224th St 4,200 East 224th St 1,800 East 224th St 4,000 East 224th St 3,000 East 224th St 3,300 East 224th St 2,200 East 224th St 2,200 East 224th St 2,800 East 224th St 2,800 East 224th St 2,700 White Plams Road 2,700 East 225th St 1,600 East 225th St 3,000 East 225th St 3,000 East 225th St 3,550 East 225th St 4,200 East 225th St 4,200 East 225th St 4,200 East 225th St 4,200 East 225th St 4,400 East 222nd St 5,400 East 222nd St 3,600 East 222nd St 3,600 East 222nd St 7,100 East 222nd St ; 2,100 East 222nd St 1,800 East 222nd St 10,800 East 222nd St 3,600 Land $1,200 1,200 2,400 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 800 800 800 800 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 5,100 1,000 1,000 1,800 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,700 2,700 2,400 1,200 1,200 1,250 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,700 1,000 1,000 2,200 1,100 2,200 3,600 1,200 Ratio 79:21 64:36 47:53 70:30 66:34 69:31 77:23 77:23 77:23 77:23 72:28 72:28 72:28 72:2S 75:25 65:35 65:35 65:35 45:55 64:36 80:20 62:38 73:27 65:35 65:35 70:30 70:30 61:39 50:50 40:60 71:29 71:29 67:33 79:21 79:21 79:21 79:21 80:20 76:24 78:22 78:22 76:24 66:34 45:55 75:25 75:25 $263,600 $109,700 204 III. BROOKLYN SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION FIVE, BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN (Standard Composite Ratio: 39.44:60.66) Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Group A: Address Improvements Land 201 Troy Ave $1,250 $2,850 203 Troy Ave 525 1,875 205 Troy Ave 1,100 2,100 213 Troy Ave 500 1,800 $3,375 $8,625 Ratio 30:70 22:78 36:64 22:78 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address r ' ^ Ratio Improvements Land 227 Albany Ave $7,800 $3,200 71:29 229 Albany Ave 3,650 1,650 69:31 231 Albany Ave 3,350 1,650 67:33 233 Albany Ave 3,350 1,650 67:33 235 Albany Ave 3,350 1,650 67-33 237 Albany Ave 3,350 1,650 67:33 239 Albany Ave 3,350 1,650 67:33 241 Albany Ave 3,350 1,650 67:33 243 Albany Ave 3,350 1,650 67:3o 245 Albany Ave 3,350 1,650 67:3S 247 Albany Ave 3,350 1,650 67:33 249 Albany Ave 3,350 1,650 67:33 251 Albany Ave 3,350 1,650 67:33 253 Albany Ave 6,100 3,200 66:34 200 Park Place 4,400 2,500 64:36 202 Park Place 3,800 1,500 72:28 204 Park Place 3,800 1,500 72:28 208 Park Place 3,800 1,500 72:28 210-12 Park Place 6,000 2,300 72:28 212 Park Place 5,800 1,500 79:21 214 Park Place 5,700 1,600 78:22 216 Park Place 5,700 1,500 79:21 218 Park Place 5,700 1,500 79:21 220 Park Place 5,700 1,500 79:21 222 Park Place 5,700 1,500 79:21 1174 Park Place 3,150 2,050 61:39 1176 Park Place 3,150 2,050 61:39 1178 Park Place 3,150 2,050 61:39 1190 Park Place 3,900 2,100 71:29 1192 Park Place 3,900 2,100 71:29 1196 Park Place 3,900 2,100 71:29 1198 Park Place 3,900 2,100 71:29 1200 Park Place 3,900 2,100 71:29 1202 Park Place 2,500 2,000 56:44 1204 Park Place 2,500 2,000 56:44 1206 Park Place 2,500 2,000 56:44 1208 Park Place 2,500 2,000 56:44 1210 Park Place 2,500 2,000 56:44 1212 Park Place 2,500 2,000 56:44 1214 Park Place 2,500 2,000 56:44 1216 Park Place 2,500 2,000 56:44 1218 Park Place 2,500 2,000 56:44 1220 Park Place 2,500 2,000 56:44 1222 Park Place 2,500 2,000 56:44 205 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Address Assessed Values 1224 1226 1228 1230 1232 1254 1256 1258 1262 1264 1266 1268 1270 1272 1274 1278 1280 1282 1282* 1288 1290 1292 1294 1296 1298 1300 1302 1304 1308 1310 1312 1203 1205 1207 1209 1211 1215 1217 1219 1221 1223 1225 1227 1229 1231 1233 1235 1237 1239 1241 1243 1245 1247 1249 1251 1253 1255 1257 1259 1261 1263 1289 Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place . , Park Place. . Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place. . Park Place. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Park Place.. Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster Ster ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place, ing Place. Improvements $2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 3,850 4,050 3,050 3,950 3,850 3,700 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,650 3,700 3,750 3.750 3,800 3,850 3,900 1.950 1,800 1.950 1,950 1,950 2,550 2,550 2,550 2,550 2,550 2,550 1,480 2.550 2,550 2,550 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2.350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2,350 2.350 2,350 2,350 2,3.50 3,800 Land $ 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,750 1,850 1,750 1,800 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,900 1,850 1,850 1,800 1,750 1,700 1,450 1,700 1,450 1,450 1,450 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 2,050 1,150 2.050 2,050 2,050 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 1,950 • 1,800 Ratio 56:44 56:44 56:44 56:44 56:44 66:34 66:34 66:34 66:34 66:34 66:34 66:34 66:34 66:34 66:34 66:34 67:33 70:30 68:32 68:32 67:33 65:35 65:35 65:35 65:35 66:34 67 -.n 67 M 68:32 69:31 70:30 57:43 51:49 57:43 57:43 57:43 55:45 55:45 55:45 55:45 55:45 55:45 56:44 55:45 55:45 55:45 55:45 55:45 55-45 55-45 55:45 55:45 55:45 55:45 55:45 55:45 55:45 55:45 55:45 55-45 55:45 68:32 • Thus in record. 206 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address i * ^ Improvements Land 1291 Sterling Place $3,800 $1,800 1293 Sterling Place 3,800 1,800 1295 Sterling Place 3,800 1,800 1297 Sterling Place 3,800 1,800 1299 Sterling Place 3,800 1,800 1301 Sterling Place 3,800 1,800 1303 Sterling Place 3,800 1,800 1307 Sterling Place 3,800 1,800 1309 Sterling Place 3,800 1.800 1311 Sterling Place 3,800 1,800 1313 Sterling Place 4,000 1,600 1315 Sterling Place 4,000 1,600 1319 Sterling Place 4,000 1,800 1321 Sterling Place 4,050 1,750 1323 Sterling Place 4,050 1,750 1325 Sterling Place 4,000 1,800 1327 Sterling Place 4,000 1,800 1329 Sterling Place 4,000 1,800 1331 Sterling Place 3,975 1,825 1333 Sterling Place ^ 3,950 1,850 1335 Sterling Place 3,925 1,875 1337 Sterling Place 4,200 2,900 1343 Sterling Place 3,950 1,950 1345 Sterling Place 3,950 1,850 1347 Sterling Place 3,950 1,850 204 Troy Ave 2,400 2,500 206TrovAve 2,500 1,200 206a Tr'oy Ave 2,300 1,200 207 Troy Ave 6,025 1,875 208 Troy Ave 2,300 1,200 210 Troy Ave 2,300 1,200 211 Troy Ave 2,550 1,950 212 Troy Ave 2,300 1,200 214 Troy Ave 2,300 1,200 216 Troy Ave 2,300 1,200 218 Troy Ave 2,300 1,200 220 Troy Ave 2,300 1,200 222 Troy Ave 2,300 1,200 224 Troy Ave 2,300 1,200 226 Troy Ave 2,300 1,200 228 Troy Ave 2,500 1,200 230 Troy Ave 3,500 2,500 $471,555 $271,025 Ratio 68:32 68:32 68:32 68:32 68:32 68:32 68:32 68:32 68:32 68:32 71:29 71:29 69:31 70:30 70:30 69:31 69:31 69:31 69:31 68:32 68:32 59:41 67:33 68:32 68:32 49:51 62.5:37.5 66:34 76:24 66:34 66:34 57:43 66:34 66:34 66-34 66-34 66:34 66:34 66:34 66:34 62.5:37.5 58:42 207 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION SIX, BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN (Standard Composite Ratio: 39.44:60.56) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address / * n Ratio Improvements Land 336 McDonough St $1,900 $8,100 19:81 338 McDonough St 3,200 8,100 28:72 406-10 McDonough St 2,850 6,250 31:69 333 Decatur St 1,675 3,125 35:65 339 Decatur St 1,500 2,500 37.5:62.5 343 Decatur St 1,500 2,500 37.5:62.5 345 Decatur St 1,500 2,500 37.5:62.5 $14,125 $33,075 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address r Improvements 298 McDonough St $10,750 300 McDonough St 7,125 302 McDonough St 7,125 304 McDonough St 7,500 306 McDonough St 6,025 308 McDonough St 7,125 310 McDonough St 7,125 312 McDonough St 7,125 314 McDonough St 7,125 316 McDonough St 7,300 318 McDonough St 6,825 320 McDonough St 6,825 322 McDonough St 6,825 324 McDonough St 6,825 326 McDonough St 6,825 328 McDonough St 6,825 330 McDonough St 6,825 332 McDonough St 6,825 344 McDonough St 5,300 346 McDonough St 5,300 348 McDonough St 5,300 350 McDonough St 5,400 362 McDonough St 7,375 364 McDonough St 7,375 366 McDonough St 7,375 368 McDonough St 7.375 370 McDonough St 7,375 372 ATcDonough St 14,800 374 McDonough St 5,350 376 McDonough St 5,350 378 McDonough St 5,350 380 McDonough St 5,475 382 McDonough St 5,475 384 A/[cDonough St 5,475 386 McDonough St 5,675 400 McDonough St 3,825 400a McDonough St 3,825 402 McDonough St 3,825 404 McDonough St 2,975 412 McDonough St 7,825 414 McDonough St 6,200 416 McDonough St 6,200 418 McDonough St 6,200 420 McDonough St 6.200 422 McDonough St 6,200 Ratio $6,750 61:39 2,575 74:26 2,575 74:26 2,700 74:26 2,175 74:26 2,575 73:27 2,575 73:27 2,575 73:27 2,575 73:27 2,700 73:27 2,575 73:27 2,575 73:27 2,575 73:27 2,575 73:27 2,575 73:27 2,575 73:27 2,575 73:27 2,575 72:28 2,700 66:34 2,700 66:34 2,700 66:34 2,700 67:33 2,625 74:26 2,625 74:26 2,625 74:26 2,625 74:26 2,625 74:26 5,200 74:26 2,250 70:30 2,250 70:30 2,250 70:30 2,325 70:30 2,325 70:30 2,325 70:30 2,375 70:30 2,075 65:35 2,075 65-35 2.075 65:35 3,125 49:51 3,125 72:28 2,500 71:29 2,500 71:29 ■2,500 71:29 2,500 71:29 2,500 71:29 208 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ( ^ ~ Improvements 424 McDonough St $6,200 426 McDonough St 6,200 428 McDonough St 6.200 430 McDonough St 6,200 432 McDonough St 6,200 434 McDonough St 6,200 225 Decatur St 17.000 227 Decatur St 7,125 229 Decatur St v- 7,125 231 Decatur St 7.125 233 Decatur St 7,125 235 Decatur St 3,675 237 Decatur St 3,675 237a Decatur St 3,675 239 Decatur St 3,675 241 Decatur St 3,675 243 Decatur St 3,675 245 Decatur St 4,700 247 Decatur St 4,700 249 Decatur St 4,700 251 Decatur St 4,700 253 Decatur St 4,100 255 Decatur St 4,100 257 Decatur St 4,100 259 Decatur St 9,000 271 Decatur St 6.075 273 Decatur St 5.950 275 Decatur St 5.950 277 Decatur St 5.950 279 Decatur St 5.950 281 Decatur St 6,375 283 Decatur St 6,375 285 Decatur St 6,375 287 Decatur St 6,375 289 Decatur St 6,375 291 Decatur St 4,875 293 Decatur St 4,875 295 Decatur St 4,875 297 Decatur St 4,875 299 Decatur St 4,950 301 Decatur St 11,400 307 Decatur St 4,400 309 Decatur St 4,200 311 Decatur St 4,200 313 Decatur St 4,200 315 Decatur St 4,400 317 Decatur St 4,550 319 Decatur St 4,550 .321 Decatur St 4,550 .323 Decatur St 4,650 325 Decatur St 3,650 327 Decatur St 3,575 329 Decatur St 3,575 331 Decatur St 3,575 335 Decatur St 3,025 335a Decatur St 3,025 337 Decatur St 3,025 341 Decatur St 2,500 347 Decatur St 2,500 349 Decatur St 2,500 351 Decatur St 2,500 353 Decatur St 2,125 355 Decatur St 2,125 357 Decatur St 2,125 Ratio Land $2,500 71-29 2,500 71:29 2,500 71 -.29 2,500 71-29 2,500 71 -.29 2,500 71:29 6,000 74:26 2,375 75:25 2,375 75:25 2,375 75:25 2,375 75:25 2,325 61:39 2,325 61:39 2,325 61 :39 2,325 61 :39 2,325 61:39 2,325 61:39 2,800 63:37 2,800 63:37 2,800 63:37 2,800 63:37 2,800 59:41 2,800 59:41 2,800 59:41 2,800 76:24 2.625 70:30 2,550 70:30 2,550 70:30 2,550 70:30 2,550 70:30 2.625 71:29 2.625 71:29 2.625 71 :2Q 2.625 71:29 2,625 71:29 2,625 65:35 2.625 65:35 2.625 65:35 2,625 65:35 2,550 66:34 5.100 69:31 2,500 64:36 2,500 63:37 2,500 63:37 2,500 63:. 37 2,500 64:36 2,250 67:33 2,250 67:33 2,250 67:33 2,250 67:33 2,450 60:40 2,325 61:39 2,325 61:39 2,325 61:39 2,075 59:41 2,075 59:41 2,075 59:41 2,500 50:50 1,900 43:57 1,900 43:57 1,900 43:57 2,975 58:42 2,975 58:42 3,175 60:40 209 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address 359 Decatur St 361 Decatur St 363 Decatur St 365 Decatur St 367 Decatur St 369 Decatur St 371 Decatur St 373 Decatur St 300 Reid Ave 302 Reid Ave 302* Reid Ave o04a Reid Ave 306 Reid Ave 308 Reid Ave - Katio Tiprovements Land , $2,125 $3,175 60:40 3,175 2,125 60:40 2.525 2,075 55:45 2,525 2,075 55:45 2,525 2,075 55:45 2,525 2,075 55:45 2,325 2,075 53:47 7,500 5,000 60:40 13,900 5,100 73:27 4,800 2,300 68:32 4,800 2,300 68:32 4,800 2,300 68:32 4,800 2,300 68:32 4,800 2,300 68:32 $677,415 $323,275 210 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION EIGHT, BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN (Standard Composite Ratio: 3944:60.56) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address 599 Bedford Ave. Improvements $2,900 Land $7,600 $2,900 $7,600 Ratio 29:71 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values 583 585 587 589 591 593 595 597 134 136 138 140 142 144 146 148 150 152 154 156 158 160 162 164 166 168 170 190 192 194 196 198 200 202 204 206 208 210 212 214 216 218 220 222 224 226 228 230 Address r ^ Improvements Land Bedford Ave $8,300 $8,700 Bedford Ave 4,300 4,700 Bedford Ave 4,300 4,700 Bedford Ave 4.300 4,700 Bedford Ave 4.300 4,700 Bedford Ave 3,600 4,900 Bedford Ave 3,600 4,900 Bedford Ave 3,600 4,900 Keap St 4,850 3,850 Keap St 3,600 3,700 Keap St 3.600 3,700 Keap St 3,600 3,700 Keap St 3,600 3.700 Keap St 3,600 3,700 Keap St 3,600 3,700 Keap St 3,600 3,700 Keap St 5,300 3,700 Keap St 3,600 3,700 Keap St 3,400 3,300 Keap St 3,400 3,400 Keap St 3,400 3,400 Keap St 3,200 3,300 Keap St 3,200 3,300 Keap St 3,200 3,300 Keap St 3,200 3,300 Keap St 3,750 2,650 Keap St 3,750 2,650 Kepp St 3,750 2,650 Keap St 3.750 2,650 Keap St 3,800 3,800 Keap St 3.700 3,600 Keap St 3,700 3.600 Keap St 3,650 3.650 Keap St 3,650 3,650 Keap St 3,650 3.650 Keap St 5.350 3.650 Keap St :. 8.850 3.650 Keap St 8.850 3.650 Keap St 4,850 3,650 Keap St 2.550 3.250 Keap St 2,550 3.250 Keap St 2,550 3.250 Keap St 2.950 3,250 Keap St 2,550 3,250 Keap St 4.050 3,450 Keap St 4,050 3,250 Keap St 4,050 3,250 Keap St 4,050 3,250 Keap St 4.050 3,250 Keap St 4,7.50 3,050 Keap St 4,750 3,050 Ratio 49:51 48:52 48:52 48:52 48:52 42:58 42:58 42:58 56:44 49:51 49:51 49:51 49:51 49:51 49:51 49:51 59:41 49:51 51:49 50:50 50:50 56-44 56:44 56:44 56:44 59:41 59:41 59:41 59:41 50:50 51:49 51 :49 50:50 50:50 50:50 59:41 71:29 71:29 57:43 44:56 44:56 44:56 48:52 44:56 54:46 55:45 55:45 55:45 55-45 61:39 61:39 211 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address , a ^ ^^^.^ Improvements Land 232 Keap St $4,750 238 Keap St 4 150 240 Keap St 3^900 242 Keap St 3,900 244 Keap St 3 900 246 Keap St 4,250 248 Keap St 4,200 252 Keap St 4,600 254 Keap St 4,600 256 Keap St 4,900 258 Keap St 4,800 260 Keap St 4,600 262 Keap St 3,450 264 Keap St 2,950 266 Keap St 2,950 268 Keap St 2 950 270 Keap St 31750 272 Keap St 3,750 280 Keap St 2,850 282 Keap St 2,850 284 Keap St 2,850 286 Keap St 2,850 117 Hooper St 3,800 1 19 Hooper St 4,800 121 Hooper St 3 900 123 Hooper St 3^850 125 Hooper St 3 900 127 Hooper St 3,850 129 Hooper St 3,850 131 Hooper St 3,900 133 Hooper St 3.900 135 Hooper St 3.900 137 Hooper St 3,800 139 Hooper St 3,800 141 Hooper St 3 900 143 Hooper St 3,'500 143 Hooper St 3,500 147 Hooper St 3.500 167 Hooper St 3,650 169 Hooper St 4,700 171 Hooper St 4.700 1 73 Hooper St 4700 1 75 Hooper St ' 4*700 177 Hooper St 3,900 179 Hooper St 3,850 181 Hooper St 3,800 183 Hooper St 4,550 185 Hooper St 3,650 185* Hooper St 3 350 189 Hooper St 3.350 191 Hooper St 3.300 193 Hooper St 4,600 195 Hooper St 4*600 197 Hooper St 4.600 199 Hooper St 4*600 201 Hooper St 4,'600 203 Hooper St 4^500 205 Hooper St 4.700 207 Hooper St 4'600 209 Hooper St 3,600 211 Hooper St 2.700 213 1 loopcr St 3,750 * Thus in record. 212 $3,050 61:39 4,350 49:51 2,900 57:43 2.900 57:43 2,900 57:43 2,950 59:41 3,000 58:42 2,900 61 :39 2,900 61:39 3,300 60:40 3,200 60:40 2,900 61 :39 3,050 53:47 3,050 49:51 3,050 49:51 3,050 49:51 3,050 55:45 3,050 55:45 2,850 50:50 2,850 50:50 2,850 50:50 2,850 50:50 3,300 53:47 3,700 56:44 3,300 54:46 3,350 53:47 3,400 53:47 3,350 53:47 3.350 53:47 3,600 52:48 3,600 52:48 3,600 52:48 3,000 56:44 2,900 57:43 2,900 57:43 2,900 55:45 2,900 55:45 3.000 54:46 2,550 59:41 3,100 60:40 3,100 60:40 3,100 60:40 3,100 60:40 3,100 56:44 3,150 55:45 3,200 54:46 3,150 59:41 2,650 58:42 2,650 56:44 2,650 56:44 2,700 55:45 3,200 59:41 3,200 59:41 3,200 59:41 3,200 59:41 3.200 59:41 3.300 58:42 3.100 60:40 3,200 59:41 3,200 53:47 3,400 44:56 2,550 60:40 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ( ^ \ Ratio Improvements Land 215 Hooper St 13,750 R550 60:40 217 Hooper St 3,750 2,550 60:40 219 Hooper St 3.750 2,550 60:40 221 Hooper St 4,000 3,800 42:58 233 Hooper St 3,100 3,100 50:50 235 Hooper St 2,900 3,000 49:51 237 Hooper St 2,900 2,950 50:50 239 Hooper St 3,350 2,900 54:46 241 Hooper St 3,400 2,850 55:45 243 Hooper St 3,450 2,800 57:43 245 Hooper St 3,450 2,850 52:48 247 Hooper St 3,300 3,000 52:48 249 Hooper St 3,300 3,000 52:48 251 Hooper St 3,300 3,000 52:48 253 Hooper St 3,700 3,000 55 :45 255 Hooper St 3,700 3,000 55:45 257 Hooper St 2,700 3,000 47:53 259 Hooper St 2.700 3,000 47:53 261 Hooper St 2.700 3,000 47:53 263 Hooper St 2.700 3,000 47:53 265 Hooper St 2,700 3,000 47:53 267 Hooper St. 2,150 2,850 43:57 269 Hooper St 2,150 2,850 43:57 271 Hooper St 2.150 2,850 43:57 273 Hooper St 2,150 -2,850 43:57 275 Hooper St 2,600 2,900 47 :53 277 Hooper St " 3.100 2,600 54:46 279 Hooper St ,3.400 2,300 60:40 113 Lee Ave 4,700 3,600 57:43 115 Lee Ave 4,800 3,200 60:40 117 Lee Ave 3,800 3,200 54:46 119 Lee Ave 7,800 5,200 6040 243 Marcy Ave 3,050 2,950 51 :49 245 Marcv Ave 3,050 2,950 51:49 247 Marcy Ave 3.050 2.950 51 :49 249 Marcy Ave 3,050 2,950 51:49 251 Marcy Ave 3,050 2,950 51 :49 253 Marcv Ave 3,100 4,400 41:59 258 Marcy Ave 2.500 3,500 42:58 260 Marcy Ave 2.500 3,500 42:58 272 Division Ave 2,400 2,900 45:55 274 Division Ave 2,350 2,950 44:56 276 Division Ave 2,650 2.950 47:53 280 Division Ave 2.400 2,800 46:54 282 Division Ave 3,800 4,000 49:51 6 Harrison Ave 2.600 3,900 60:40 8 Harrison Ave 2,600 3,900 60:40 8* Harrison Ave 2.600 3,400 57:43 Thus in record. $584,800 $526,650 213 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION TWELVE, BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN {Standard Composite Ratio: 39.U: 60.56) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ^ , t „„j Improvements Lana $11000 $3,000 365 New Jersey Ave \'m) 1.000 373 New Jersey Ave ^'^^J^ 1100 375 New Jersey Ave ^-^^^ 1 100 377 New Jersey Ave •^'T^'i 1 000 403 New Jersey Ave >^-^^^ 1 000 405 New Jersey Ave ^-^^^ 1^000 407 New Jersey Ave -^'^^^ 1000 411 New Jersey Ave ^-^^ 1 000 413 New Jersey Ave -^'^^^ 1 000 415 New Jersey Ave v^^ joOO 417 New Jersey Ave ^'^^„ 1000 419 New Jersey Ave "^'^^^ 1 OOO 423 New Jersey Ave ^-'^^^ 2,000 426 New Jersey Ave ^'^^" 1200 366 Belmont Ave |'^^" 1 lOO 372 Belmont Ave ^-^^^ IjOO 374 Belmont Ave ^^" 1 000 376 Belmont Ave |'^^^ 1500 378 Belmont Ave i'^'i'i 95O 363 Vermont St ^'^"^^ 95O 365 Vermont St -^-^g^ 1000 367 Vermont St ^-^^^ 1 000 368 Vermont St ^'^"^^ 950 369 Vermont St ^'gj^ 1 000 370 A^ermont St ^'^'^b^ 95O 371 Vermont St ^'«J^ looo 372 Vermont St ^-^"^^ 95O 375 Vermont St -^-"^^^ 95O 377 Vermont St ;J'«J^ 1 000 379 Vermont St ^loo 1.000 381 Vermont St ^-J^^ 1000 385 Vermont St ""'f' 1000 387 Vermont St J-^^^ 1 000 388 Vermont St J,uuu ^, 389 Vermont St J-^^^ 1000 390 Vermont St J'^^^ 1 OOO 391 Vermont St J-g'^^ 1000 392 Vermont St J'^^" 1 000 393 Vermont St ^^"^ 1000 394 Vermont St J-^^^ 1 OOQ 305 Vermont St J-^^^^ 1 OQO 39.S Vermont St J-^^^^ 1 OQO 399 Vermont St J'^^^ 1 qqO 400 Vermont St ^-^^^ 2,000 401 Vermont St ^-^^^ 2,000 402 Vermont St ^'^"" ____^_ $170,100 $51,800 Ratio 79:21 79:21 76:24 76:24 75:25 75:25 75:25 75:25 75:25 75:25 75:25 75:25 75:25 73-27 56:44 48:52 45:55 50:50 50:50 79:21 80:20 80:20 71:29 80:20 71:29 80:20 71:29 80:20 80:20 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 80:20 81:19 80:20 81:19 80:20 81:19 80:20 81:19 80:20 81:19 80:20 78:22 79:21 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address '^~ , t „,,j Improvements Lana 32. Wyona S. *|500 ^-'foS iU&l:::::::::::::::::;:::::::::- i:«,S 214 Ratio 70:30 74:26 74:26 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address 326 Wyona St 327 Wyona St 328 Wvona St 329 WVona St 330 WVona St 331 Wyona St 333 Wyona St 334 Wyona St 335 Wyona St 336 Wyona St :iZ7 Wvona St 338 Wyona St 339 Wyona St 340 Wvona St 341 Wvona St 342 Wvona St 343 Wyona St 344 Wvona St 345 Wvona St 346 Wvona St 347 Wyona St 348 Wyona St 349 Wyona St 350 Wvona St 351 Wyona St 352 Wvona St 353 WVona St 354 Wyona St 355 Wvona St 357 Wvona St 359 Wvona St 361 Wvona St 363 WVona St 332 Bradford St 334 Bradford St 338 Bradford St 340 Bradford St 344 Bradford St 346 Bradford St 348 Bradford St 350 Bradford St 352 Bradford St 354 Bradford St 356 Bradford St 358 Bradford St 360 Bradford St 362-66* Bradford St. 364 Bradford St 366 Bradford St Improvements . . $2,500 Land $1,000 2,600 900 2,500 1,000 2,600 900 2,500 1,000 2,600 900 2,600 900 3,000 1,000 2,600 900 3,000 1,000 2,600 900 3,000 1,000 2,600 900 3,000 1,000 2,600 900 3,000 1,000 2,600 900 3,000 1,000 2,600 900 3,000 1,000 2,600 900 3,000 1,000 2,600 900 3,000 1,000 2,600 900 3,000 1,000 2,600 900 3,000 1,000 2,600 900 2,600 900 2,600 900 2,600 900 3,100 1.900 2,500 1.500 2.500 1.500 2,500 1.500 3,000 1,500 2,500 1.500 3,050 950 3,050 950 3,050 950 3,050 950 2.850 950 3,050 950 3.050 950 3 050 950 3.050 950 3,050 950 6.100 1,900 Ratio 72:28 74-26 72:28 74:26 72:28 74:26 74:26 75:25 74:26 75:25 74.26 75:25 74:26 75:25 74:26 75:25 74:26 75:25 74:26 75:25 74:26 75:25 74:26 75-25 74-26 75:25 74:26 60:40 74:26 74:26 74:26 74:26 62:38 63:37 63:37 63:37 67:33 63:37 76:24 76:24 76:24 76:24 75:25 76:24 76:24 76:24 76:24 76:24 76:24 $318,600 $106,100 Thus in record. 215 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION SIXTEEN, BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN (Standard Composite Ratio: 39.44:60.56) Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address i ^ — Improvements 1135 Ditmas Ave $3,200 1720 Ditmas Ave 6,500 584 Newkirk Ave 6,500 1715 Newkirk Ave 17,500 Land $5,100 10,500 10,000 30,000 $33,700 $55,600 Ratio 39:61 38:62 39:61 37:67 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address r * 1 Ratio Improvements Land 407 Dorchester Road $5,300 $5,700 48 :52 445 Dorchester Road 5,400 5,100 51 :49 445* Dorchester Road 4.700 5,300 47:53 446 Dorchester Road 7,200 4,600 61 :39 447 Dorchester Road 5,700 6,100 48:52 448 Dorchester Road 6,400 4,900 57:43 450 Dorchester Road 5,000 5,000 50:50 456 Dorchester Road 4,700 3,500 57:43 1106 Dorchester Road 4,700 3,500 57:43 451 Westminster Road 5,300 3,200 62:38 455 Westminster Road 4,800 3,200 60:40 456 Westminster Road 5,000 3,200 61 :39 461 Westminster Road 4,900 3,200 60 :40 462 Westminster Road 4,800 3,200 60:40 465 Westminster Road 5,500 3,200 63 -.37 466 Westminster Road 4,800 3,200 60 :40 470 Westm.inster Road 4.800 3,200 60:40 471 Westminster Road 5,100 3,200 61 :39 473 Westminster Road 5.800 3,200 64 :36 476 Westminster Road 5,000 3,200 61 :39 480 Westminster Road 5,500 3 ,200 63 :37 481 Westminster Road 5,100 3,200 61 :39 485 Westminster Road 5.300 4,000 57 :43 486 Westminster Road 5.000 3,200 61 :39 491 Westminster Road 4,600 3,600 56 :44 492 V/estminster Road 4,800 3,600 57 :43 497 Westminster Road 4,200 3,200 57 :43 498 Westminster Road 4,800 3,200 60 :40 501 Westminster Road 4,800 3,200 60:40 502 Westminster Road 4,800 3,200 60 :40 506 Westminster Road 4,800 3,200 60 :40 507 Westminster Road 5,400 3,200 63 :37 512 Westminster Road 5.200 4,000 57 :43 515 Westminster Road 6,200 3.400 65 :35 518 Westminster Road 4,700 4,800 49 :51 — Ditmas Ave 4,400 4.600 49:51 1115 Ditmas Ave 5.000 4.000 56:44 1121 Ditmas Ave 4,600 4,000 53:47 1207 Ditmas Ave 6,600 6.400 51:49 1211 Ditmas Ave 5,500 4.500 55:45 1217 Ditmas Ave 5,200 4.500 54:46 1221 Ditmas Ave ' ,6.000 7.000 46:54 — Ditmas Ave 10,000 11.000 48:52 1690 Ditmas Ave 12.000 10.500 53:47 1700 Ditmas Ave 12,700 10.800 54:46 1712 Ditmas Ave 8.400 8.100 51:49 — Ditmas Ave 10,400 8,300 56:44 * Thus in record. 216 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address < '^ ^ ~ p Improvements Land 1890 Ditmas Ave $12,500 $11300 453 Stratford Road 6,300 3,200 457 Stratford Road 5,600 3,200 461 Stratford Road 6,000 3,200 467 Stratford Road 6,000 3,200 471 Stratford Road 5,000 3,200 - Stratford Road 5,200 3,200 481 Stratford Road 5,000 3,200 - Stratford Road 5,200 3,200 493 Stratford Road 5,100 3,200 501 Stratford Road 5,100 3,200 505 Stratford Road 5,100 3,200 - Stratford Road 5.400 3,200 449 Argyle Road 6,100 3,600 455 Argyle Road 6,100 3,200 456 Argyle Road 3,800 3,200 459 Argyle Road 5.000 3,200 460 Argyle Road 3.800 3,200 465 Argyle Road 5.300 3,200 466 Arlyle Road 4.000 3,200 469 Argyle Road 5.300 3,200 472 Argyle Road 7.400 7,600 475 Argyle Road 5,300 3,200 481 Argyle Road 5,300 3,200 483 Argyle Road 5.300 3,200 484 Arlvie Road 4.200 4,000 490 Argyle Road 6.000 4,000 491 Argvle Road 5.300 3,200 495 Arg>'le Road 5,300 3,200 496 Argyle Road 4.600 3,600 501 Argyle Road 5,800 3,200 505 Argyle Road 5,300 3,200 508 Argyle Road 4.900 3,600 511 Argyle Road 5.800 3,200 512 Argvle Road 4.200 3,600 515 Argvle Road 5.800 3,200 520 Argyle Road 4.700 4,800 521 Argyle Road 5.800 3,200 1303 Argvle Road 5,800 4,700 449 Rugby Road 6,500 3,400 454 Ruiby Road 6.000 4,000 457 Rugby Road 5.800 3,400 458 Rugby Road 6.200 3,400 459 Rugby Road 6,200 3,400 462 Rugby Road 4.800 3.400 467 Rugby Road 4.800 3,400 469 Rugby Road 6.200 3,400 470 Rugbv Road 6.400 3,400 474 Rugby Road 5.900 3,400 477 Rubgy Road 5.400 3,400 479 Rugby Road 6,100 3.400 480 Rugby Road 6.600 5,100 484 Rugby Road 6,750 4,250 485 Rugby Road 5,800 3,400 489 Rugby Road 6.200 3.400 494 Rugby Road 6.450 4.250 495 Rulby Road 6.100 3,400 498 Rugby Road 6.200 3.400 501 Rugby Road 5.800 3.400 502 Rugby Road 6,200 3,400 503 Rugby Road 6,200 3,400 506 Rugby Road 5.900 3.400 509 Rugbv Road 7,600 3,400 512 Rugby Road 6,200 3,400 Ratio 53:47 66:34 64:36 65:35 65:35 61:39 62:38 61:39 62:38 62:38 62:38 62:38 63:37 63:37 61:39 54:46 61:39 54:46 62:38 56:44 62:38 49:51 62:38 62:38 62:38 51:49 60:40 62:38 62:38 56:44 64:36 62:38 58:42 64:36 54:46 64:36 49:51 64:36 55:45 66:34 60:40 63:37 65:35 65:35 59:41 59:41 65:35 65:35 63:37 61:39 64:36 56:44 61:39 63:37 65:35 60:40 64:36 65:35 65:35 65:35 69:31 65:35 217 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address Improvements 513 Rugby Road $6,500 516 Rugby Road 7,300 517 Rugby Road 6,600 522 Rugby Road 5,900 523 Rugby Road 9,000 526 Rugby Road 7,200 452 Marlborough Road 5,700 456 Marlborough Road 5,000 458 Marlborough Road 4,700 462 Marlborough Road 5,700 466 Marlborough Road 5,600 470 Marlborough Road 6,200 474 Marlborouiiih Road 4,700 476 Marlborough Road 4,700 480 Marlborough Road 6,200 484 Marlborough Road 5,900 488 Marlboroueh Road 4,700 492 Marlborough Road 6,200 496 Marlborough Road 4,700 500 Marlborough Road 4,700 504 Marlborough Road 4,700 508 Marlborough Road 6,400 537 East 17th St 6,200 543 East 17th St 6,200 546 East 17th St 7,300 549 East 17th St 6.200 552 East 17th St 6,200 555 East 17th St 6,200 560 East 17th St 6,200 561 East 17th St 7.000 564 East 17th St 6,200 572 East 17th St 7,700 — East 17th St 5,800 — East 17th St 6,200 653 East 17th St 5,500 659 East 17th St 5.700 665 East 17th St 6,500 671 East 17th St 5,500 677 East 17th St 7,000 689 East 17th St 6.000 701 East 17th St 7,000 707 East 17th St 5,500 713 East 17th St 5,500 719 East 17th St 5,500 725 East 17th St 5.750 578 Newkirk Ave 6.500 1603 Newkirk Ave 3,700 1609 Newkirk Ave 3,300 1615 Newkirk Ave 7.800 1815 Newkirk Ave ' 5,800 1819 Newkirk Ave ~ . . 6.000 511 East 16th St 5,500 513 East 16th St 5,750 519 East 16th St 5.500 523 East 16th St 5,500 549 East 16th St 5,500 525 East 18th St 5.500 531 East 18th St 5.750 532 East 18th St 6.300 535 East 18th St 5.500 539 East 18th St 6.000 543 East 18th St 5,500 .^44 East 18th St 6,250 .548 East 18th St 6,250 Land $3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 5,000 5,800 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 5,400 6,000 6,000 6,500 6.000 6.000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 7,900 4,700 3.600 5.000 5,000 5.000 5.000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 6.300 5,000 4,000 4,700 4,700 4,700 4,750 4,750 4.750 4.750 5,500 6,000 5.750 5,400 5,750 5,750 5750 5,750 5.750 Ratio 66:34 68:32 66:34 63:37 64:36 55:45 64:36 61:39 59:41 64:36 64:36 66:34 59:41 59:41 66:34 65:35 60:40 66:34 60:40 60:40 60:40 54:46 51:49 51:49 53:47 51:49 51:49 51:49 51:49 54:46 51:49 49:51 55:45 6?,:2,7 52-48 53:47 57-43 52:48 58:42 55:45 58:42 52:48 52:48 52:48 54:46 51:49 53:47 45:55 62:38 55:45 56:44 54:46 55:45 54:46 54:46 50:.S0 48:53 50:50 54:46 49:51 51:49 49:51 52:48 52:48 218 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address > ' ^ Ratio Improvements Land 554 East 18th St $5,600 $6,900 45:55 635 East ISth St 5,300 5,200 51 :49 639 East 18th St 5,400 3,800 59:41 642 East 18th St 6,200 3,800 62:38 643 East 18th St 6,000 4.500 57:43 646 East 18th St 6,300 3,200 66:34 649 East 18th St 7,200 4,500 62:38 652 East 18th St 7,000 4,500 61:39 655 East 18th St 4,500 4,500 50:50 658 East 18th St 4,500 4.500 50:50 661 East 18th St 7,200 4,500 62:38 664 East 18th St 6,000 4,500 57:43 667 East 18st St 4,500 4,500 50:50 670 East 18th St 6,700 4.500 60-40 673 East 18th St 5.500 4.500 55:45 674 East 18th St 4.500 4.500 50:50 679 East 18th St 7,000 4.500 61 :39 682 East 18th St 5,300 4.500 54:46 685 East ISth St 7,900 4,500 64:36 690 East 18th St 6,250 4,500 58:42 693 East 18th St 4,500 4,500 50:50 699 East 18th St 7,700 4.500 63:37 700 East 18th St 7,700 4,500 63:37 705 East 18th St 8.000 4.500 64:36 706 East 18th St 7,500 4,500 62,:Z7 711 East 18th St 5,300 4,500 54:46 712 East 18th St 8,000 4,500 64:36 717 East 18th St 4.500 4.500 50:.S0 718 East 18th St 4.500 4.500 50:50 723 East 18th St 6.700 4.500 60:40 724 East 18th St 5.300 4.500 54:46 729 East 18th St 7,000 4,500 61:39 730 E.-ist 18th St 4,500 4.500 50:50 520 East 19th St 6,650 6.850 49:51 526 East 19th St 6.800 6.000 53:47 530 East 19th St 6.800 6,000 53:47 536 East 19th St 6.800 6.000 53:47 540 East 19th St 7.000 6,300 53:47 616 East 19th St 5,700 4,300 52:48 624 East 19th St 4,450 4,050 52:48 630 East 19th St 4.500 4.500 50-50 636 East 19th St 6,300 4.500 58:42 642 East 19th St 6.500 4.500 59:41 648 East 19th St 4,900 4.500 52:48 654 East 19th St 5.300 4.500 54:46 660 East 19th St 4,700 4,500 51:49 666 East 19th St 6,000 4,500 57:43 672 East 19th St 4.700 4.500 51 :49 678 East 19th St 4.600 4.500 51 :49 684 East 19th St 4,700 4,500 51 :49 690 East 19th St 5,650 4,500 56:44 696 East 19th St 6.350 4.500 59:41 702 East 19th St 5.450 4.500 55:45 708 East 19th St 6.350 4.500 59:41 714 East 19th St 5,450 4.500 55:45 720 East 19th St 6.500 4.500 59:41 1703 Avenue G 6,400 7,600 46:54 1709 Avenue G 7.000 4.750 60:40 1721 Avenue G 7.400 7.600 49:51 1803 Avenue G 6.900 5.250 57:43 1809 Avenue G 5.000 4,750 51:49 1815 Avenue G 7,500 4,750 61:39 1821 Avenue G 8.250 5.250 61:39 $1,396,600 $1,050,550 219 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION NINETEEN, BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN (The district consists of assessment blocks: 6172 — between 18th and 19th avenues and between 70th and 71st streets—; 6178 — between 13th and 14th avenues and between 71st and 72nd streets — ; 6200 — between 13th and 14th avenues and between 73rd and 74th streets — ; 6222 — between 13th and 14th avenues and between 75th and 76th streets — ; and 6233 — between 13th and 14th avenues and between 76th and 77th streets.) (Standard Composite Ratio: 3944:60.56) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address r ' ^ Ratio Improvements Land 7308 14th Ave $2,500 $4,500 36:64 $2,500 $4,500 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address r ' ^ Ratio Improvements Land 7001 18th Ave $7,000 $1,500 7003 18th Ave 5,000 1,000 7007 18th Ave 5,000 1,000 7011 18th Ave 5,000 1,000 7015 18th Ave 5,000 1,000 7017 18th Ave 10,000 2,000 7021 18th Ave 5,000 1,000 18th Ave 5,000 1,000 7023 18th Ave T 7,000 1,500 70th St 4,000 4,700 70th St 4,000 4,700 70th St 4,000 4,700 70th St 4,000 4,700 70th St 4,000 4,700 70th St 4,000 4,700 70th St 4,000 4,700 70th St 4,000 4,700 70th St 4,000 4,700 70th St 4,000 4,700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3.000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3.000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,000 700 70th St 3,400 1,200 71st St 3,000 700 71st St 3.000 700 71st St 3,000 .-700 71st St 3,000 700 71st St 3,000 700 220 82 18 83 17 83 17 83 17 83 17 83 17 83 17 83 17 82 18 85 15 85 15 85 15 85 15 85 15 85 15 85 15 85 15 85 15 85 15 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 74 26 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 81 19 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address < ' 1 ? Ratio Improvements 71st St $3,000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3.000 1835 71st St 3,000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3.000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3.000 71st St 3,000 1855 71st St 3,000 71st St 3.000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3,000 71st St ^ 3,000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3,000 71st St 3,400 71st St 2,100 71st St 1.900 71st St 2,100 71st St 2,100 71st St 2,100 71st St 2,100 71st St 2,100 71st St 2,100 71st St 2,100 71st St 2.100 71st St 2.100 7ist'St 2.100 71st St 2.100 71st St 2.100 7104 14th Ave 3,500 7108 14th Ave 3.000 7115 14th Ave 3.600 14th Ave 2.100 7316 14th Ave 3.400 7320 14th Ave 3.500 14th Ave 4.800 14th Ave 4.300 14th Ave 4.300 14th Ave 3.100 14th Ave 3.100 14th Ave 3,100 14th Ave 3,100 14th Ave 3,300 72nd St 2,800 . 72nd St 4.000 72nd St 4.000 72nd St 4.000 72nd St 4.000 72nd St 4,000 72nd St 3.700 72nd St 3,500 72nd St 3,500 72nd St 3,500 72nd St 3,500 221 Land $700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 700 81:19 1,100 76-24 800 72:29 1,800 51:49 1,800 54:46 1,800 54:46 800 72:28 800 72:28 800 72:28 800 72:28 800 72:28 800 72:28 800 72:28 800 72:28 800 72:28 800 72:28 2,900 55:45 2,600 54:46 3,900 48:52 1.800 54:46 2.800 55:45 4.500 44:56 4,200 53:47 2.600 62:38 2,600 62:38 2.900 52:48 2,600 54:46 2,600 54:46 2,600 54:46 2,900 53:47 1,800 55:45 1,800 69:31 1,800 69:31 1,800 69:31 1,800 69:31 1,800 69:31 1,800 67:33 900 80:20 900 80:20 900 80:20 900 80:20 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address i ^ n Ratio Improvements Land ■ 72nd St $3,500 $900 80:20 • 72rd St 3,500 900 80:20 ■ 72nd St 3,500 900 80:20 ■ 72nd St 3,500 900 80:20 ■ 72nd St 3,500 900 80:20 ■ 13th Ave 7,700 2,300 77:23 ■ 13th Ave 5,200 1,500 78:22 ■ 13th Ave 5,200 1,500 78:22 ■ 13th Ave 5,200 1,500 78:22 ■ 13th Ave 5.200 1,500 78:22 • 13th Ave 5,200 1,500 78:22 13th Ave 5,200 1,500 78:22 13th Ave 5,200 1.500 78:22 13th Ave 5,200 1,500 78:22 13th Ave 7.700 2,300 77:23 13th Ave 4,500 1,200 79:21 13th Ave 4,500 1,200 79:21 13th Ave 4,500 1,200 79:21 13th Ave 4,500 1,200 79:21 13th Ave 4,500 1,200 79:21 13th Ave 4,500 1.200 79:21 13th Ave 4,500 1,200 79:21 13th Ave 4,500 1,200 79:21 13th Ave .^ 4,500 1,200 79:21 13th Ave 4,500 1,200 79:21 13th Ave 7,500 1,500 83:17 73rd St 4,200 1,800 70:30 73rd St 4.200 1,800 70:30 73rd St 4,200 1,800 70:30 73rd St 4,200 1,800 70:30 73rd St 4,200 1,800 70:30 73rd St 3,900 1,800 68:32 73rd St 4,500 900 83:17 73rd St 2,400 1,800 57:43 73rd St 2,400 1,800 57:43 73rd St 2,400 1,800 57:43 73rd St 2.400 1,800 57:43 73rd St 3.800 1.800 68:.32 73rd St 2.400 1.800 57:43 73rd St 2.700 1,800 60:40 74th St 2,800 1,800 61:39 74th St 2,800 1,800 61:39 74th St 2,500 1,800 58:42 74th St 2,500 1,800 58:42 74th St 2,800 1,800 61:39 74th St 2,500 1,800 58:42 74th St 2,800 1,800 61:39 74th St 4,450 1,800 66:34 74th St 4,700 1,800 72:28 74th St 4.700 1,800 72:28 74th St 4.700 1.800 72:28 74th St 4,700 1,800 72:28 75th St 2,500 1,700 60:40 75th St 2,4.50 1,550 62:38 75th St 2,450 1,550 62-38 75th St 2,450 1,550 62:38 7Sth St 2,450 1,550 62:38 7Sth St 2,450 1,550 62:38 75th St 2,750 1,550 64:.36 75th St 4,300 2,000 68:32 75th St 4,300 2,000 68:32 75th St 4,300 -2,000 68:32 75lh St 4,300 2,600 62:38 76th St 3,200 1,000 76:24 222 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' ' ^ Ratio Improvements Land 76tli St $3,000 $1,000 75:25 76th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 76th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 76th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 76th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 76th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 75th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 76th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 76th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 76th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 76th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 76th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 76th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 76th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 76th St 4,000 900 82:18 77th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3,000 1.000 75:25 77th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3.000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3,000 1,000 75:25 77th St 3,600 900 80:20 77th St 3,600 900 80:20 77th St 3,600 900 80:20 77th St 3,600 900 8020 77th St 3,600 900 80:20 77th St 3,600 900 80:20 77th St 3.600 900 80:20 77th St 3.600 900 80:20 $728,550 $297,600 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION TWENTY, BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN (The district consists of assessment blocks: 6687 — between avenues G and H and between Westminster and Argyle roads — ; 6688 — between avenues G and H and between Argyle and Rugby roads — ; 6689 — between Avenue G and Waldorf Court and between Rugby Road and E. 17th Street — ; and 6690 — between Waldorf and Wellington courts and between Rugby Road and E. 17th Street.) (Standard Composite Ratio: 39. W- 60.56) Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Address ' * \ Ratio Improvements Land 788 East 17th St $6,400 $12,600 34:66 $6,400 $12,600 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address > ■ — * ^ Ratio Improvements Land 1202 Avenue G $8,700 $5,700 60:40 1212 Avenue G 6,300 3,400 65:35 1304 Avenue G 4,950 4,850 51:49 1312 Avenue G 6,450 4,250 60:40 1316 Avenue G 5,000 3,400 60:40 1320 Avenue G 5,300 5,700 48:52 1404 Avenue G 5,150 4,850 52:48 1410 Avenue G 6.750 4,250 60:40 1416 Avenue G 6,200 4,400 59:41 1422 Avenue G 6,200 4,400 59:41 1426 Avenue G 6,000 4,400 58:42 1430 Avenue G 6,000 4,100 59:41 1434 Avenue G 4,500 2,700 63:37 1444 Avenue G 4,400 2,800 61:39 1448 Avenue" G 6,000 4,200 59:41 *1554 Avenue G 5,400 4,400 55:45 1462 Avenue G 5,000 4,400 53:47 1466 Avenue G 5,000 4,400 53:47 1470 Avenue G 6,000 4,300 58:42 1476 Avenue G 7,200 7,300 50:50 715 Argyle Road 4,550 4,250 52:48 716 Argyle Road 5,050 4,250 54:46 *716 Argyle Road 5,700 3,400 63:37 720 Argyle Road 5,500 3,400 62:38 721 Argyle Road 4,750 4,250 53:47 722 Argjde Road 4,750 4,250 53:47 725 Argyle Road 4,500 3,400 57:43 726 Argyle Road 4,400 3,400 56:44 *726 Argyle Road 5,800 3,400 63:37 730 Argyle Road 5,900 3,400 63:37 731 Argyle Road 4,400 3,400 56:44 732 Argyle Road 4,900 3,400 59:41 735 Argj'le Road 5,000 3,400 60:40 736 Argyle Road 4,400 3,400 56:44 7.39 Argyle Road 4,800 3,400 59:41 740 Argyle Road 4,600 3,400 58:42 *740 Argyle Road 5,500 3,400 62:38 744 Argyle Road 5,900 3,400 63:37 745 Argyle Road 4,400 3,400 56:44 746 Argyle Road 4,500 3,400 57:43 750 Argyle Road 5,000 '3,400 60:40 * Thus in record. Land Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address ' * Improvements 751 Argyle Road $4,600 $ 752 Argyle Road 4,900 752 Argyle Road 4,900 754 Argyle Road 6,000 755 Argyle Road 4,400 756 Argyle Road 5,000 759 Argyle Road 4,800 760 Argyle Road 4,400 *760 Argyle Road 4,900 764 Argyle Road 4,800 765 Argyle Road 4,700 766 Argyle Road 4,600 769 Argyle Road 4,400 770 Argyle Road 4,800 *770 Argyle Road 6,100 775 Argyle Road 5,000 776 Argyle Road 4,400 779 Argyle Road 4,800 780 Argvle Road 4,900 *780 Argyle Road 4,900 783 Argjle Road 4,600 784 Argvle Road 4.700 *784 Argvle Road 4,575 790 ArgVle Road 4,900 *790 Argyle Road 4,875 793 Argvle Road 4,500 794 Argyle Road 5,000 *794 Argyle Road 5,000 719 Westminster Road 5,950 725 Westminster Road 5,750 729 Westminster Road 5,800 733 Westminster Road 6,300 737 Westminster Road 5,800 741 Westminster Road 5,800 745 Westminster Road 5,800 751 Westminster Road 5.800 755 Westminster Road 5,800 761 Westminster Road 5.800 765 Westminster Road 5,800 771 Westmnister Road 5,800 775 Westminster Road 5.800 781 Westminster Road 5.800 785 Westminster Road 5,800 789 Westminster Road 5.800 793 Westminster Road 5.800 715 Rngbv Road 6,100 721 Rngh'y Road 4,400 725 Rugby Road 4,800 741 Rugby Road 4.500 745 Rugby Road 4,600 751 Rugby Road 4.400 755 Rngbv Road 5.600 12 Waldorf Court ) 4,800 15 Waldorf Court 4,400 16 Waldorf Court 3,400 19 Waldorf Court 6,300 20 Waldorf Court 5,220 23 Waldorf Court 5,000 26 Waldorf Court 4,380 27 Waldorf Court 6,100 28 Waldorf Court 5,400 31 Waldorf Court 4,400 Ratio 3,400 58:42 3,400 59:41 3,400 59:41 3,400 64:36 3,400 56:44 3,400 60:40 3,400 59:41 3,400 56:44 3,400 59:41 3,400 59:41 3,400 58:42 3,400 58:42 3,400 56:44 3,400 59:41 3,400 64:36 3,400 60:40 3,400 56:44 3,400 59:41 3,400 59:41 3,400 59:41 3,400 58:42 3,400 58:42 3,825 54:46 3,400 59:41 3,825 56:44 3,400 57:43 4.300 54:46 4,000 56:44 4,250 58:42 4,250 57:43 3,400 63:37 3,400 65:35 3,400 63:37 3,400 63:37 3,400 63:37 3,400 63:37 3,400 63-37 3,400 63:37 3,400 63:37 3,400 63:37 3,400 63:37 3,400 63:37 3,400 63:37 3,400 63:37 4,000 59:41 3,400 64:36 3,400 56:44 4,400 52:48 3.800 54:46 3,800 55:45 3,400 56:44 4,800 54:46 3,200 60:40 3,200 58:42 3,200 58:42 3.200 66:34 3.280 61:39 3.200 61:39 3.120 58:42 3.200 66:34 3.000 64:36 3,000 59:41 Thus in record. 225 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Address r- ^ , Ratio Improvements Land ^i )f.^!1°''^. ^^"'^ ^4,500 $2,500 64:36 T. ^^^H"""^ ^""""^ 4,500 2,500 64-36 ;^ }^^^°'1 S°"''^ 4,500 2,500 64:.36 44 Wadorf Court 4,500 3,200 69:31 47 Waldorf Court 6,000 3 200 65 -"^S 51 Waldorf Court 4,500 3!600 56-44 ^2 Waldort Court 7,500 3,600 68:32 c? Sr'^^^''^ ^""'^ 5-000 3,600 58:42 56 Waldorf Court 6,240 3,960 61:39 ^i ^y/^'^''^ £°"''^ 5,000 3,600 58:42 62 Wakorf Court 6,050 4,050 60:40 f^ )^AK^°''r ^°"'"^ 5,000 3,600 58:42 66 Wadorf Court 6,850 4.950 58:42 *735 Waldorf Court 5,300 4,800 52-48 744 East 17th St 6,000 4,000 60:40 75S East 7th St 6,500 4,500 55:45 ^62 East /th St 6,200 5,700 52:48 -qS 5^'^^?^ ' c' 8-400 6,100 58:42 (f2 East 17th St 8,000 5.500 59:41 J^ Weuigton Cou rt 4,400 3,200 58 :42 19 Welhngton Court 4,400 3 200 58-4^ 23 Wellington Court 4,600 3^200 59 -41 27 Wellington Court 5.000 3,200 61 :39 or ))r^' ."gton Court 5.000 3,000 63 -.2,1 35 WH ington Court 4,500 2,500 64 -M 43 We hngton Court 6,900 3,900 64:36 4.^ Wenigton Court 5,200 3,200 62 :38 o3 We hngton Court 6.100 3,600 63 -.Zl 57 Wenigton Court 5,250 4,050 56 :44 65 Welhngton Court 7150 4 950 59-41 $707,930 $492,710 * Thus in record. SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM ASSESSMENT SECTION TWENTY-THREE, BOROUGH OF BROOKLYN (The district consists of assessment blocks: 7560— between avenues G and H and between E. 32nd Street and New York Avenue — ; j -r- o^ i. 7561 — between avenues G and H and between New York Avenue and E. 34th Street—; 7562 — between avenues G and H and between E. 34th and E. 35th streets.) (Standard Composite Ratio: 3944:60.56) Group A : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased None. Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed VaUies Address 6 East 32nd St 9 East 32nd St 11 East 32nd St 13 East 32nd St 15 East 32nd St 17 East 32nd St 19 East 32nd St 21 East 32nd St 23 East 32nd Si 25 East 32nd St 27 East 32nd St 30 East 32nd St 32 East 32nd St 34 East 32nd St 37 East 32nd St 3204 Glenwood Road. 3208 Glenwood Road. 3212 Glenwood Road. 3216 Glenwood Road. 3220 Glenwood Road. 3304 Glenwood Road. 3308 Glenwood Road. 3312 Glenwood Road. 3316 Glenwood Road. 3320 Glenwood Road. 3404 Glenwood Road. 3408 Glenwood Road. 3412 Glenwood Road. 3418 Glenwood Road. 3422 Glenwood Road. 1595 New York Ave. 1598 New York Ave. 1599 New York Ave. 1605 New York Ave. 1606 New York Ave. 1609 New York Ave. 1610 New York Ave. 1613 New York Ave. 1619 New York Ave. 1620 New York Ave. 1624 New York Ave. 1626 New York Ave. 1630 New York Ave. 1634 New York Ave. 1635 New York Ave. 1639 New York Ave. 1641 New York Ave. 1644 New York Ave. Improvements $4,100 4,000 3.900 3,400 3,200 3,600 3,500 3,900 3.600 2,700 4.400 3,700 3,450 5,050 4,050 4.450 2,000 3,000 3,500 5.000 4,150 3,300 3,300 4,200 4,150 3,800 3.200 3,200 3.800 3.800 3,100 4.300 2,500 3.300 2,900 3.700 3.000 3,600 3.500 3,500 2.900 2.500 2.500 2.600 4,300 3,700 3.700 4,100 Land $4,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2.000 2,000 3,300 2,200 2,250 2.750 2,750 2.950 2.600 2,600 2,600 3.300 2,950 2,600 2,600 2.600 2,950 2.700 2.400 2.400 2,400 2,400 2.200 2.200 2.200 2,200 2.200 2.200 2,200 2.200 2,200 2.200 2.200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 1,100 1,100 2.200 Ratio 51:49 65:35 64:36 61:39 59:41 62:38 67:33 64:36 62:38 55:45 57:43 63:37 61:39 65:35 60:40 60:40 51:4Q 54:46 57:43 60:40 58:42 56:44 56:44 62:38 58:42 58:42 57:43 57:43 61:39 58:42 59:41 66:34 53:47 60:40 57:43 63:37 58:42 62:38 61:39 61 :39 57:43 61 :.39 61:3Q 62-38 66:34 77:23 77:23 65:35 227 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Address Assessed Values 1645 New York Ave. 1547 New York Ave. 1648 New York Ave. 1651 New York Ave. 1652 New York Ave. 1653 New York Ave. 1656 New York Ave. 1660 New York Ave. 1664 New York Ave. 925 East 34th St 929 East 34th St 933 East 34th St 934 East 34th St 937 East 34th St 938 East 34th St 941 East 34th St 942 East 34th St 945 East 34th St 947 East 34th St 949 East 34th St 950 East 34th St 954 East 34th St 955 East 34th St 958 East 34th St 962 East 34th St 966 East 34th St 967 East 34th St 969 East 34th St 974 East 34th St 979 East 34th St 987 East 34th St 988 East 34th St Avenue H 8.56 Avenue H 860 Avenue H 864 Avenue H 868 Avenue H 872 Avenue H 876 Avenue H 880 Avenue H 890 Avenue H 894 Avenue H. 908-10 Avenue 912 Avenue H. 914 Avenue H. 3413 Avenue H. 3419 Avenue H. Improvements $2,900 H. 2,200 3,100 2,900 2,800 2,500 3,600 3,100 3,950 4,500 3,700 3,200 5,000 3,000 2,800 4,200 2,700 3,900 4,100 4,100 3,800 3,800 4,000 3,100 3,200 3,200 3,100 3,800 4,000 3,500 5,200 3,600 5,000 4,600 3,600 3,700 4,300 3,500 2,500 6,000 3,100 2,600 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 3,000 $345,550 Land $2,200 3,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,050 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 5,300 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1,800 1.800 1,800 900 900 900 1,600 2,400 $208,450 Ratio 57:43 59:41 59:41 57:43 56:44 53:47 62:38 59:41 66:34 69:31 65:35 62:38 71:29 60:40 58:42 68:32 57:43 66:34 67:33 67:33 66:34 66:34 67:33 61:39 62:38 62:38 61:39 66:34 67:33 64:36 72:28 64:36 49:51 72:28 67 -.ZZ 67 -.Zi 70:30 66:34 58:42 77:23 6Z:Z7 59:41 82:18 82:18 82:18 71:29 56:44 228 IV. QUEENS SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM WARD ONE, BOROUGH OF QUEENS (The district consists of assessment blocks: 79 — ^between Crescent and Ely avenues and between Jamaica Avenue and Elm Street — ; and 174 — between Trowbridge Street and Hoyt Avenue and between Woolsey and Willow streets.) {Standard Composite Ratio: 38.49:61.51) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Ward, Lot • • Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Crescent and Ely Avenues and between Jamaica Avenue and Elm Street.) 9 $2,200 $4,800 20:80 11 3,200 4,800 31:69 30 800 1,600 33:67 31 800 1,600 33:67 34 800 1.600 33:67 35 800 1,600 33:67 45 1,100 2,800 38:62 56 1,000 2,000 33:67 $10,700 $20, Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Values Ward, Lot " or Map No. Improvements Land Ratio 3en Crescent and Ely Avenues and between Jamaica Avenue and Elm Stn 1 $1,600 $1,900 46:.54 3 1,600 1,900 46:54 4 1,500 1,900 44:.56 5 1,300 1,900 41:59 6 1,300 1,900 41:59 7 2,100 2,400 47:53 8 2,100 2,400 47:53 15 1,800 2,400 47:53 20 1,700 2,700 38.64:61.36 21 1,000 800 56:44 22 1.000 800 56:44 23 1,000 800 56:44 24 1,100 1,400 44:56 25 1,100 1,400 44:56 26 3,100 1,900 62:38 27 2,900 1,500 66:34 28 1,200 1,500 44:56 29 1,200 1,500 44:56 33 1,400 1,600 47:53 36 1,500 1,600 48:52 37 1,500 1,600 48:52 41 1,500 1,300 54:46 42 1,500 1,300 54:46 43 2,500 2,000 56:44 45 2,300 2,300 50:50 47 1,400 1,800 44:56 48 1,000 1,300 43:57 49 1,000 1,300 43:57 50 1.000 1,300 43:57 51 1,000 1,300 43:57 52 950 1,350 41:59 53 950 1,350 41:59 54 950 1,350 41:59 55 1,400 2,100 40:60 56 1,400 1,400 50:50 59 2,700 2,500 52:48 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot _- — ' T R^tio or Map No. 7 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 42 43 44 50 51 52 54 75 76 77 78 nprovements Land id Hoyt Avenue and between ^ $3,500 $1,000 3,500 1,000 3,500 1,000 3,450 850 3,450 850 3,450 850 3,450 850 3,500 1,000 3,500 1,000 3,500 1,000 1,600 1,900 1,700 1,600 2,700 1,600 2,100 1,600 3,900 1,400 2,000 1,400 900 1,400 1,500 1,400 3,100 1,400 2,400 2,800 1,100 1,400 5,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 5,000 1,000 $143,050 $111,850 78:22 78:22 78:22 80:20 80:20 80:20 80:20 78:22 78:22 78:22 49:51 52:48 63:37 57:43 74:26 59:41 39:61 52:48 69:31 46:54 44:56 83:17 83:17 83:17 83:17 230 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM WARD TWO, BOROUGH OF QUEENS (The district consists of parts of assessment blocks: 175 — between Centre and De Bevoise avenues and between Midwood and Washington avenues; 176 — between De Bevoise and Harmon avenues and between Midwood and Cooper avenues; 55 — ^between Railroad and Ludlow Avenue and between 5th Street and Whitney- Avenue; and 65 — between Elmliurst and Whitney avenues and between 3d and 4th streets.) {Standard Composite Ratio : 38.49 : 61.51) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would be Increased None. Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot or Map No. Ratio Land Improvements (Between Centre and De Bevoise avenues and between Midwood and Washington avenues.) $6,800 3,300 3,000 3,000 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 $1,200 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 1,200 85:15 81:19 79:21 79:21 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 74:26 (Between De Bevoise and Harmon avenues and between Midwood and Cooper avenues.) $6,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 3,300 $1,200 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 231 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Woltld Be Decreased — Continued Ratio 81:19 85:15 89:11 86:14 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 81:19 62:38 71:29 71:29 70:30 70:30 70:30 70:30 70:30 70:30 70:30 70:30 71:29 50:50 40:60 57:43 57:43 60:40 74:26 73:27 73:27 73:27 74:26 70:30 69:31 69:31 69:31 69:31 69:31 69:31 69:31 69:31 70:30 65:35 64:35 64:36 64:36 65:35 58:42 Ward, Lot Assessed Values or Map No. Improvements Land De Bevoise and Harmon avenues and between Midvs 17 $3,300 $800 22 3,300 600 27 6,200 800 28 5,000 800 29 3,300 800 30 3,300 800 31 3,300 800 32 3,300 800 33 3,300 800 34 3,300 800 35 3,300 800 36 3,300 800 37 3,300 800 38 3,300 800 39 3,300 800 40 3,300 800 41 3,300 800 42 3,300 800 43 3,300 800 44 3,300 800 45 3,300 800 46 3,300 800 Railroad and Ludlow avenues and between 5th St 1 $6,500 $4,000 6 3,000 1,200 7 3,000 1,200 8 2,800 1,200 9 2,800 1,200 10 2,800 1,200 11 2,800 1,200 12 2,800 1,200 13 2,800 1,200 14 2,800 1,200 15 2,800 1,200 16 3,000 1,200 27 2,250 2,250 29 2,000 3,000 31 2,000 1,500 33 2,000 1,500 35 2,200 1,500 39 3,400 1,200 40 3,300 1,200 41 3,300 1,200 42 3,300 1,200 43 3,400 1,200 jtween Elmhurst and Whitney avenues and betwee; 5 $3,000 $1,300 6 2,900 1,300 6^ 2,900 1,300 7 2,900 1,300 8 2,900 1,300 9 2,900 1,300 10 2,900 1,300 10^ 2,900 1,300 11 2,900 1,300 12 3,000 1,300 17 2,800 1,500 18 2,100 1.200 19 2,100 1,200 20 2,100 1,200 21 2,800 1,500 23 2,200 1,600 232 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot ' ■ Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Elmliurst and Whitney avenues and between 3d and 4th streets.) — Cont'd. 24 $2,200 $1,600 58:42 25 2,200 1,600 58:42 26 2,200 1,600 58:42 29 2,200 1,600 58:42 30 2,200 1,600 58:42 31 2,200 1,600 58:42 32 2,200 1,600 58:42 $349,250 $118,350 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM WARD THREE, BOROUGH OF QUEENS (The district consists of assessment blocks: 75 — between Percy Street and Parsons Avenue and between Lincoln and Amity- streets — ; 75 — between Bowne and Parsons avenues and between Amity Street and Madison Avenue — ; 77 — between Parsons Avenue and Percy Street and between Madison Avenue and Amity Street — ; and 78 — between Bowne and Parsons avenues and between Madison Avenue and Barclay Street.) {Standard Composite Ratio: 39.51 : 60.4d) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Ward, Lot ■ ■ . Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Percy Street and Parsons Avenue and between Lincoln and Amity streets.) 7 $2,300 $3,700 38.33:61.67 (Between Bowne and Parsons avenues and between Amity Street and Madison Avenue.) 7 $3,600 $8,200 31:69 39 3,100 8,100 28:72 47 2,800 5,400 34:66 $11,800 $25,400 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot or Map No. Ratio Improvements Land sen Percy Street and Parsons Avenue and between Lincoln and Amii 1 $6,550 $6,650 50:50 4 4,500 6,150 40:60 8 11,400 13,100 47:53 14 3,700 3,700 50:50 18 2,700 2,500 52:48 19 3,750 5,650 40:60 22 3,050 3,150 49:51 33 2,800 2,800 50:50 35 2,200 2,500 47:53 37 2,100 2,500 46:54 39 2,100 2,500 46:54 41 2,200 2,500 47:53 43 2,100 2,800 43:57 49 2,600 3,100 46:54 51 3,050 2,150 59:41 52 2,300 2,700 46:54 54 4,700 3,300 59:41 56 2,350 1,950 55:45 58 2,350 1,950 55:45 59 2,650 1,950 58:42 60 2,050 1,650 55:45 61 3,500 2,800 56:44 63 2,000 2,800 42:58 65 2,100 2,800 43:57 67 1,750 1,550 53:47 69 2,750 1,550 53:47 80 3,950 3,850 51:49 82 4,900 3,700 57:43 85 4,000 3,700 52:48 234 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Bowne and Parsons avenues and between Amity Street and Madison Avenue.) 1 $8,300 $6,200 57:43 14 2,400 2,800 46:54 16 2,700 2,800 49:51 18 4,200 2,800 53:47 20 2,900 2,800 51:49 22 3,950 5,550 42:58 26 3,500 3,300 68:49 28 3,700 5,500 40:60 35 4,300 6,700 39:61 45 2,900 2,700 52:48 51 2,350 2,650 47:53 53 2,600 2,600 50:50 (Between Parsons Avenue and Percy Street and between Madison Avenue and Amity Street.) 3 $2,800 $2,700 51:49 8 13,100 12,900 50:50 20 2,225 1,775 56:44 21 2,425 1,775 58:42 22 2,800 3,600 44:56 24 2,800 1,800 61:39 25 2,400 1,800 57:43 34 3,100 2,900 52:48 36 2,550 2,150 54:46 37 2,650 2,150 55:45 39 2,650 2,150 55:45 40 2,700 2,400 53:47 42 3,600 3,200 53:47 44 3,900 4,500 46:54 50 3,700 4,000 48:52 53 2,450 2,150 53:47 54 2,500 2,700 48:52 56 2,300 2,700 46:54 58 2,500 2,700 48:52 60 2,500 2,700 48:52 62 2,500 2,700 48:52 64 2,950 4,050 42:58 66 2,950 4,050 42:58 68 3,000 2,700 53:47 70 2,950 4,050 42:58 73 3,450 4,050 46:54 76 2,300 2,700 46:54 78 2,300 2,700 46:54 80 2,300 2,700 46:54 (Between Bowne and Parsons avenues and between Madison Avenue and Barclay Street.) 13 $3,000 $2,800 52:48 15 3,500 2,800 56:44 17 2,450 2,250 52:48 19 2,650 2,250 54:46 21 2,850 5,050 36:64 25 2,750 5,050 35:65 34 5,700 5,300 52:48 37 3,650 3,350 52:48 39 3,250 3,350 49:51 42 2,650 3,350 44:56 $274,100 $297,800 235 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM WARD FOUR, BOROUGH OF QUEENS (The district consists of assessment blocks: 279— between Ridgewood Avenue and Ftdton Street and between Lefferts Avenue and Church Street — ; 280 — ^between Fulton Street and Park Place and between Birch Street and Lefferts Avenue — ; 28l_between Ridgewood Avenue and Fulton Street and between Birch Street and Lefferts Avenue — ; 282 — between Fulton Street and Atlantic Avenue and between Spruce and Birch streets — ; 784— between Myrtle Avenue and Alsop Street and between Shelton Avenue and Willett Street—; 785— between Myrtle Avenue and Alsop Street and between Willett Street and Hillside Avenue — ; 786— between Alsop and Roy streets and between Shelton Avenue and Willett Street;— and 787— between Alsop and Roy avenues and between WiUett and Hillside avenues.) {Standard Composite Ratio: 38.49:61.51) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Ward, Lot ^ ^ Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Ridgewood Avenue and Fulton Street and between Lefferts Avenue and Church Street.) 48 $1,250 $2,750 31:69 (Between Fulton Street and Park Place and between Birch Street and Lefferts Avenue.) 39 $350 $950 27:73 54 3,000 7,500 29:71 (Between Ridgewood Avenue and Fulton Street and between Birch Street and Lefferts Avenue.) 31 $3,200 $7,800 29:71 63 3,000 2,300 37:43 (Between Myrtle Avenue and Alsop Street and between Shelton Avenue and Willett Street.) 29 $1,800 $3,200 36:64 49 2,100 3,400 38:62 60 2,700 5,000 35:65 (Between Myrtle Avenue and Alsop Street and between Willett Street and Hillside Avenue.) 1 $1,500 $3,100 33:67 21 1,700 3,800 31:69 23 1,500 3,800 27:73 47 2,000 3,200 38:62 52 1,800 3,200 36:64 54 1,800 3,200 36:64 (Between Alsop and Roy streets and between Shelton Avenue and Willett Street.) 1 $3,000 $8,000 27:73 44 2,500 4,500 36:64 60 2,500 4,000 38:62 62 2,500 4,500 36:64 64 1,900 3,600 35:65 66 4,200 6,800 38:62 70 6,000 10,000 ■ 38:62 $50,300 $94,600 236 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot ■ • Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Ridgewood Avenue and Fulton Street and between Lefferts Avenue and Church Street.) 1 $3,200 $3,000 52:48 7 4,100 3,900 51:49 10 5,000 2,700 65:35 12 3,500 2,700 56:44 14 4,000 3,000 57:43 16 5,000 6,000 45:55 21 2,800 3,000 48:52 23 3,600 3,000 55:45 25 3,000 3,000 50:50 27 5,500 3,300 62:38 31 6,000 3,500 63:37 34 3,200 2,300 58:42 36 3,300 2,200 60:40 38 3,300 2,200 60:40 40 4,100 2,200 65:35 42 3,600 2,200 62:38 44 2,600 2,200 54:46 46 2,750 2,750 50:50 50 2,950 2,750 52:48 (Between Fulton Street and Park Place and between Birch Street and Lefferts Avenue.) 1 $6,800 $5,700 54:46 8 2,500 2,000 56:44 10 4,500 2,300 66:34 12 4,000 2,000 67:33 14 4,000 2,000 67:33 16 2,850 1,750 62:38 19 2,450 1,550 61:39 21 2,450 1,550 61:.39 22 3,050 1,750 64:36 24 3,050 1,750 64:36 26 3,050 1,750 64:36 28 3,050 1,750 64:36 30 9,000 3,000 75:25 37 3,100 1,900 62:38 40 14,000 6,000 70:30 47 3,100 2,400 57:43 49 3,100 2,400 57:43 52 3,000 3,000 50:50 61 3,900 3,600 52:48 (Between Ridgewood Avenue and Fulton Street and between Birch Street and Lefferts Avenue.) 1 $3,000 $2,000 60:40 8 2,750 3,750 42:58 12 2,750 3,750 42:58 16 2,750 3,750 42:58 20 2,550 1,750 59:41 22 2,550 1,750 59:41 24 4,500 6,500 41:59 37 3,800 2,200 63:37 39 2,250 2,250 50:50 41 3,000 3,000 50:50 43 2,600 3,000 46:54 45 4,800 2,700 64:36 47 3,100 3,300 48:52 49 3,400 2,700 56:44 51 3,400 3,600 49:51 (Between Fulton Street and Atlantic Avenue and between Spruce and Birch streets.) 1 $3,500 $900 80:20 2 3,500 900 80:20 3 5,700 1,800 76:24 5 4,300 2,100 67:33 237 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Values Ward, Lot or Map No. Improvements Land Ratio ^ulton Street and Atlantic Avenue and between Spruce and Birch stre 7 $4,500 $1,200 79:21 9 4,500 1,200 79:21 10 4,500 1,200 79:21 12 4,500 1,200 79:21 13 2,600 1,400 65:35 15 2,800 2,600 52:48 26 4,000 1,400 74:26 28 1,000 1,800 64:36 37 3,250 1,050 76:24 38 3,500 1,500 70:30 39 2,700 3,000 47:53 42 2,700 2,000 57:43 44 2,800 2,000 58:42 46 2,000 1,000 67:33 47 3,800 2,000 71:29 51 4,550 3,750 55:45 55 5,250 2,250 70:30 57 2,500 2,000 56:44 59 3,050 1,750 64:36 61 3,050 1,750 64:36 vlyrtle Avenue and Alsop Street and between Shelton Avenue and Will 1 $11,000 $9,000 55:45 7 3,200 4,800 40:60 11 1,500 2,000 43:57 13 2,900 4,000 42:58 16 2,300 3,600 39:61 19 3,400 4,100 45:55 22 4,300 3,200 57:43 24 2,600 3,200 45:55 27 3,800 3,200 54:46 32 4,700 5,300 47:53 36 2,200 3,300 60:40 42 3,000 4,500 60:40 46 3,000 3,300 48:52 51 3,000 3,500 46:54 54 4,800 5,200 48:52 58 2,300 3,500 40:60 (Between Myrtle Avenue and Alsop Street and between WiUett Street and Hillside Avenue.) 26 $3,850 $1,650 70:30 27 3,850 1,650 70:30 28 3,850 1,650 70:30 29 3,850 1,650 70:30 30 3,850 1,650 70:30 44 2,300 3,000 43:57 49 3,000 3,200 48:52 57 2,500 3,200 44:56 59 2,300 3,200 42:58 62 2,500 3,400 42:58 (Between Myrtle Avenue and Alsop Street and between Willett Street and Hillside Avenue.) 31 $3,850 $1,650 70:30 32 4,000 2,000 67:33 33 3,835 1,465 72:28 34 3,835 1,465 72:28 35 3,825 1,375 74:26 36 7,000 1,000 41:59 238 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxes Would be Decreased Values Ward, Lot ■ • Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Alsop and Roy streets and between Shelton Avenue and Willett Street.) 6 12,500 $4,700 35:65 10 2,500 2,400 51:49 12 1,900 2,400 44:56 15 2,300 3,100 43:57 17 3,100 3,100 50:50 20 2,600 3,100 46:54 24 3,700 5,300 41:59 28 4,200 3,300 56:44 30 2,100 2,300 48:52 46 2,800 4,000 41:59 50 2,700 1,800 60:40 52 2,700 1,800 60:40 54 2,700 1,800 60:40 56 2,700 1,800 60:40 (Between Alsop and Roy avenues and between Willett and Hillside avenues.) 26 $3,200 $3,800 46:54 28 3,200 3,800 46:54 31 ■ 2,700 3,800 42:58 34 4,000 3,600 53:47 37 2,600 2,400 52:48 39 2,600 2,400 52:48 41 2,600 2,400 52:48 43 2,600 2,400 52:48 45 2,600 2,400 52:48 47 2,300 2,700 55:45 50 2,600 2,300 53:47 52 2,600 2,300 53:47 54 2,600 2,300 53:47 56 2,600 2,300 53:47 $477,755 $370,505 239 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM WARD FIVE, BOROUGH OF QUEENS (The district consists of assessment blocks: , t-- u.u 10 ^between Washington and Newport avenues and between Seventh and Eighth 19 ^between Central and State avenues and between Cleveland, Nostrand and Roanoke 3-VGnU.GS — " 33 ^between Jerome and Stratton avenues and between Boulevard and Atlantic Ocean — ; and j t^ i j \ 42 between Grove and Hammels avenues and between Atlantic Ocean and Boulevard.) (Standard Composite Ratio: 88.49:61.51) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Ward, Lot ' • Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Central and State avenues and between Cleveland, Nostrand and Roanoke avenues.) 9 $1,900 $3,100 38:62 11 1,900 3,100 38:62 17 3,600 6,000 38:62 19 1,000 7,500 12:88 22 2,000 7,500 21:79 24 3,100 6,400 33:67 30 400 4,800 8:92 33 1,700 4,800 26:74 36 2,200 4,800 31:69 39 2,500 5,000 • 33:67 42 1,500 8,500 15:85 56 1,500 3,200 32:68 60 1,500 7,000 18:82 62 1,500 5,700 21:79 78 3,000 6,500 32:68 (Between Jerome and Stratton avenues and between Boulevard and Atlantic Ocean.) 3 $1,000 $5,000 17:83 13 3,200 5,800 36:64 67 3,000 5,000 38:62 (Between Grove and Hammels avenues and between Atlantic Ocean and Boulevard.) 321 $1,100 $1,800 38:62 $37,600 $101,500 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ratio Ward, Lot or Map No. Improvements Land tVashington and Newport avenues and between Seventh and Eighth 1 $7,200 $3,800 65:35 3 5,200 3,300 61:39 5 4,000 5,000 44:56 7 4,000 2,000 67:33 8 4,100 2,000 67:33 10 4,400 2,000 69:31 12 4,400 2,000 69:31 12^ 3,800 2,000 66:34 19 3,000 2,000 60:40 20 3,000 2,000 60:40 24 4,000 2,000 67:33 27 3,000 2,000 60:40 28 4,000 2,000 67:33 29 5,500 2,000 73:27 33 4,500 2,000 69:31 34 5,000 2,500 67:33 36 3,000 3,000 50:50 45 3,700 2,000 65:35 47 6,400 5,100 57:33 52 3,200 1,800 64:36 54 2,800 1,800 61:39 66 5,650 2,850 66:34 240 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot « , Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Central and^ State avenues and between Cleveland, Nostrand and Roanoke avenues.) 1 $2,000 $2,000 50:50 U 2,200 2,300 49:51 $98,050 $59,450 (Between Central and State avenues and between Cleveland, Nostrand and Roanoke avenues.) 2 $2,200 $3,000 42:58 4 2,700 3,800 42:58 7 2,900 3,100 48:52 12 2,300 3,100 43:57 13 10,500 7,500 58:42 50 4,500 3,200 44:56 52 3,000 3,200 48:52 54 2,200 3,200 41:59 75 5,500 6,000 48:52 (Between Jerome and Stratton avenues and between Boulevard and Atlantic Ocean.) 1 $6,000 $4,000 60:40 25 9,200 5,800 61:39 28 4,700 5,800 45:55 32 4,400 5,100 46:54 35 7,000 5,000 58:42 38 12,700 7,300 68:32 41 2,300 3,200 42:58 45 2,300 3,200 42:58 52 9,000 9,500 49:51 5i8 4,100 3,900 51:49 61 4,500 3,900 54:46 64 4,600 3,900 54:46 72 4,500 5,000 47:53 78 4,800 4,500 52:48 81 8,750 6,750 56:44 91 11,000 9,000 55:45 (Between Grove and Hammels avenues and between Atlantic Ocean and Boulevard.) 1 $9,000 $5,000 64:36 15 1,600 900 64:36 16 1,600 900 64:36 17 1,600 900 64:36 18 2,100 900 67:33 19 2,100 900 67:33 20 2,500 1,800 58:42 21 2,500 1,800 58:42 21 J 1,900 900 68:32 22 1,900 900 68:32 22i 1,650 950 63:27 23 2,000 1,000 67:33 231 1,925 975 66:34 27 1,600 900 64:36 28 4,600 3,400 58:42 32 4,400 1,800 71:29 37 2,400 3,100 44:56 45 1,700 900 65:35 57 1,700 700 71:29 56 1,700 900 65:35 58 1,400 1,000 58:42 60 1,400 1,000 58:42 61 1,800 900 67:33 62 5,600 4,500 55:45 68 2,200 900 71:29 69 2,200 900 71:29 70 2,200 900 71:29 241 GroupIB: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot ' -—7 Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Grove and Hammels avenues and between Atlantic Ocean and Boulevard.)— Con. 71 $1,600 $700 70:30 72 1,600 700 70:30 73 4,600 1,600 74:26 75 1700 700 71:29 76 1,700 1,000 63:37 77 1,700 900 65:35 $313,775 $226,625 242 V. RICHMOND SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM WARD ONE, BOROUGH OF RICHMOND (The district consists of assessment blocks: 7_between Sherman and Madison avenues and between First and Fourth avenues—; 1 — between Westervelt Avenue, Jersey Street and Seventh Avenue. — ; 9A — between Castleton Avenue, Richmond Turnpike and Jersey Street — ; and 4 — between Dongan and Bodine streets and between Richmond Terrace and Cedar Street.) {Standard Composite Ratio: 39.51:60.49) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Ward, Lot ^ — Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Sherman and Madison avenues and between First and Fourth avenues.) 65 $1,000 $1,600 38:62 55 600 2,000 23:77 (Between Westervelt Avenue and Jersey Street and Seventh Avenue.) 310 $350 $550 38.88:61.11 $1,950 $4,150 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Val lues Ward, Lot Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land Sherman and Madison avenues and between First and Fourth avenu 54 $6,500 $2,000 76:24 58 2,000 800 71:29 60 1,400 800 64:36 61 1,400 800 64:36 62 2,200 800 73:27 63 900 800 53:47 64 2,200 800 73:27 66 1,600 800 67:33 69 3,200 800 80:20 70 1,400 800 64:36 71 2,800 800 78:22 72 2,000 800 71:29 73 2,400 800 75:25 74 6,800 1,600 79:21 75 1,900 800 70:30 77 2,400 2,000 55:45 78 1,600 1,600 50:50 82 3,400 1,600 68:32 83 2,600 1,200 68:32 85 2,200 1,600 58:42 86 3,500 1,600 69:31 89 2,500 1,600 61:39 90 3,000 1,600 65:35 93 3,000 1,600 65:35 94 5,500 1,600 77:23 97 2,000 1,100 65:35 98 2,125 1,075 66:34 99 2,000 1,100 65:35 100 2,125 1,075 66:34 101 2,100 1,400 60:40 102 2,200 1,500 59:41 243 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot ^ . Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Westervelt Avenue, Jersey Street and Seventh Avenue.) 1 $1,900 $900 68:32 2 500 600 45:55 3 2,800 1,600 64:36 5 2,500 800 76:24 7 475 425 53:47 8 1,575 425 79:21 9 1,575 425 79:21 10 1,950 450 81:19 12 1,350 450 75:25 13 650 450 59:41 15 950 450 68:32 16 1,200 900 57:43 18 1,225 475 72:28 19 1,225 475 72:28 20 1,425 475 75:25 21 1,525 475 76:24 298 850 950 47:53 299 1,550 950 62:38 301 5,800 2,700 68:32 307 1,800 500 78:22 308 900 500 64:36 309 1,800 1,200 60:40 312 700 800 47:53 313 1,100 1,000 52:48 314 700 1.100 44:56 (Between Castleton Avenue, Richmond Turnpike and Jersey Street.) 1 $1,800 $1,400 56:44 3 2,000 600 77:23 5 1,800 600 75:25 6 1,600 600 73:27 7 1,000 600 63:37 8 1,100 1,200 48:52 10 500 600 45:55 11 1,300 600 68:32 12 1,500 600 71:29 13 1,000 1,400 42:58 15 5,200 1,500 78:22 17 2,000 600 77:23 18 3,000 600 83:17 19 2,200 600 79:21 20 4,400 1,200 79:21 22 3,000 900 77:23 24 4,000 1,200 77:23 26 4,150 1,050 80:20 28 1,050 550 66:34 29 2,000 600 77:23 32 1,150 750 61:39 (Between Dongan and Bodine streets and between Richmond Terrace and Cedar Street.) 1 $3,100 $1,400 69:31 3 2,800 800 78:22 5 3,300 800 81:19 7 3,200 800 80:20 9 3,000 1,500 67:33 10 2,100 500 81:19 11 2,300 500 82:18 12 2,000 1,000 67:33 14 3,000 600 83:17 16 3,100 900 , 78:22 17 2,600 1,000 72:28 19 2,100 500 81:19 244 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot ' -7 Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Dongan and Bodine streets and between Richmond Terrace and Cedar Street- Continued.) 20 S2,400 $500 83:17 21 3,150 750 81:19 23 3,150 750 81:19 24 3,000 1,000 75:25 26 1,900 500 79:21 27 2,800 500 85:15 28 1,625 475 77:23 37 3,500 700 83:17 38 3,300 1,200 73:27 39 5,500 1,500 79:21 42 2,300 500 82:18 43 2,300 500 82:18 44 2,000 500 80:20 45 1,820 480 79:21 46 1,980 520 79:21 47 3,000 1,000 75:25 49 1,800 500 78:22 50 1,800 500 78:22 51 1,600 500 77:23 52 3,200 1,000 76:24 54 1,800 500 78:22 55 1,800 500 78:22 56 1,800 500 78:22 $254,850 $100,145 245 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM WARD TWO, BOROUGH OF RICHMOND (The district consists of blocks between Broad and McKeon streets and between Brownell and Quinn streets; Richmond Road and Targee Street and between Broad and Chestnut streets; Richmond Road and Cebra Avenue and between Stone and Beach streets; and Bertha Place and Duncan Avenue and between Eddy and Theresa streets.) {Standard Composite Ratio: 39.51:60.49) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would be Increased Assessed Values Ward, Lot • • or Map No. Improvements Land Ratio (Between Richmond Road and Targee Street and between Broad and Chestnut streets. 144 $1,800 $3,200 36:64 (Between Richmond Road and Cebra Avenue and between Stone and Beach streets.) 191 $3,500 $7,500 32:68 $5,300 $10,700 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would be Decreased Assessed Values Wnrd T nt or Map No. Improvements Land Ratio sen Broad and McKeon streets and between Brownell and Quinn st 124 $1,900 $600 76:24 211 2,100 900 67:33 211A 1,000 500 67:33 212 1,700 800 68:32 213 1,700 800 68:32 214 2,000 , 800 71:29 215 2,600 800 77:23 216 1,800 800 69:31 217 1,000 800 56:44 218 1,700 800 68:32 219 2,000 800 71:29 220 2,200 800 73:27 221 1,200 800 60:40 224 1,900 900 68:32 225 800 900 47:53 226 1,900 900 68:32 227 900 900 50:50 228 1,700 900 65:35 229 900 900 50:50 230 2,800 900 76:24 231 4,200 1,800 67:33 233 2,500 2,800 47:53 235 2,300 1,200 66:34 236 3,600 1,200 75:25 237 1,600 1,200 57:43 238 1,800 1,200 60:40 239 1,600 1,200 57:43 242 2,600 1,200 68:32 243 4,300 1,200 78:22 244 1,100 1,200 48:52 245 1,300 1,200 45:55 246 1,300 1,200 52:48 247 1,300 1,200 52:48 248 4,000 1,200 77:23 249 3,100 1,200 72:28 250 1,400 1,400 50:50 251 4,100 2,400 63:37 253 800 1,200 40:60 254 800 1,200 40:60 255 1,000 1,200 45:55 256 6,100 2,400 72:28 258 1,600 1,200 57:43 259 4,200 1,300 76:24 246 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land Richmond Road and Targee Street and between Broad and Chestnu 134 $3,200 $900 78:22 136 1,700 1,100 61:39 142 1,300 900 59:41 228 1,200 600 67:33 229 3,000 1,200 71:29 231 1,200 600 67:33 232 700 600 54:46 233 1,300 600 68:32 234 1,300 600 68:32 235 1,100 900 55:45 236 1,900 1,200 40:60 236A 1,000 300 85:15 236B 800 400 67:33 238 500 67:33 239 500 79:21 240 1,400 600 67:33 241 900 600 60:40 242 800 700 53:47 243 3,300 1,500 69:31 n Richmond Road and Cebra Avenue and between Stone and Beach 115 $2,300 $2,200 51:49 117 3,100 1,400 69:31 118 2,900 1,600 64:36 119 2,900 1,600 64:36 120 6,200 3,800 62:38 122 9,200 4,800 66:34 126 19,000 8,000 70:30 130 3,500 3,000 54:46 132 6,000 3,000 67:33 137 3,900 4,700 45:55 138 2,500 2,500 50:50 190 8,100 1,900 81:19 190A 17,000 5,000 77:23 192 5,000 3,500 59:41 193 5,500 4,000 58:42 194 1,800 1,400 56:44 195 1,800 1,000 64:36 196 2,500 2,000 56:44 198 8,000 3,000 73:27 201 2,100 2,100 50:50 203 3,700 1,800 67:33 205A 1,850 350 84:16 205B 6,100 900 87:13 206 5,500 4,000 58:42 209 2,800 3,000 48:52 211 5,500 3,000 65:35 274 1,700 500 77:23 275 2,000 600 77:23 276 2,200 600 78:22 277 2,000 500 80:20 278 2,100 500 81:19 (Between Bertha Place and Duncan Avenue and between Eddy and Theresa streets) 16 $1,800 $800 69:31 17 1,800 800 69:31 19 1,700 800 68:32 104 3,200 1,800 64:36 107 4,500 1,000 82:18 112 3,800 1,200 76:24 129 2,200 600 79:21 131 2,400 600 80:20 133 2,300 300 88:12 134 2,600 600 81:19 $296,850 $155,550 247 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM WARD THREE, BOROUGH OF RICHMOND (The district consists of assessment blocks: 23 — between Simonson Place and Heberton Avenue and between Anderson Avenue and Grace Church Place — ; 24 — between Simonson and Washington places and between Post and Anderson avenues — ; 25 — ^between Heberton Avenue and Washington Place and between Anderson Avenue and Albion Place — ; 47 — between Nicholas and Lafayette avenues and between Harrison Avenue and Slaight Street — ; and 159 — ^between Sherman Street and LaFarge Avenue and between LaFarge Place and Richmond Avenue.) {Standard Composite Ratio: 89.51:60.49) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Ward, Lot ■ . Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Simonson Place and Heberton Avenue and between Anderson Avenue and Grace Church Place.) 787 $1,000 $3,000 25:75 805 2,000 4,000 33:67 827 800 1,400 36:64 $3,800 $8,400 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values TRT^^A T ^-1- Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land )imonson Place and Heberton Avenue and between Anderson Avenue ti Place.) 791 $1,400 $2,800 46:54 795 2,650 350 88:12 796 2,200 800 73:27 797 2,200 800 73:27 798 1,400 1,400 50:50 800 2,500 800 76:24 802 2,500 800 76:24 803 3,700 800 82:18 807 4,000 2,500 62:38 809 3,100 2,400 56:44 811 3,200 1,800 64:36 813 5,000 2,500 67:33 814 2,600 1,400 65:35 816 4,550 1,950 70:30 819 2,525 875 74:26 820 3,300 700 83:17 824 2,050 1,050 66:34 826 1,675 925 64:36 829 2,500 1,200 56:44 830 1,600 1,600 50:50 832 6,600 1,400 83:17 834 1,000 800 56:44 836 3,200 1,000 76:24 838 1,200 500 71:29 839 1,500 500 75:25 840 2,500 500 83:17 841 3,100 800 73:27 248 Group B : Parcels Whose Taxe s Would Be Decree ^.SED Assessed Values Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land Simonson and Washington places and between Post and i \nderson 844 SI, 500 $1,000 60:40 846 1,800 1,000 44:56 848 900 500 64:36 849 1,200 500 71:29 851 500 1,000 33:67 853 650 850 43:57 854 700 500 58:42 861 4,000 2,500 62:38 867 2,800 500 85:15 868 2,800 500 85:15 869 2,000 2,000 50:50 874 1,400 800 64:36 876 2,550 850 75:25 877 1,800 1,200 60:40 (Between Heberton Avenue and Washington Place and between Anderson Avenue and Albion Place.) 879 $3,000 $1,400 68:32 881 3,000 1,000 75:25 882 2,950 1,050 74:26 885 2,000 1,000 67:33 887 1,950 1,050 65:35 888 1,950 1,150 63:37 890 2,000 1,400 59:41 891 1,800 1,200 60:40 893 1,650 1,050 61:39 894 3,300 3,500 49:51 899 3,025 1,175 72:28 901 2,925 1,075 73:27 903 3,950 1,050 79:21 904 3,800 3,200 54:46 907 3,625 2,875 56:44 909 3,100 2,400 56:44 911 3,500 4,500 44:56 (Between Nicholas and Lafayette avenues and between Harrison Avenue and Slaight Street.) 594 $2,500 $1,000 71:29 595 3,000 800 79:21 596 2,000 800 71:29 598 2,000 600 77:23 599 2,800 1,200 70:30 601 1,900 600 76:24 602 2,200 600 79:21 603 2,200 600 79:21 604 1,900 600 76:24 605 2,000 600 77:23 606 2,300 700 77:23 610 2,500 1,000 71:29 612 1,400 800 64:36 614 6,900 1,400 83:17 616 1,500 600 71:29 617 1,400 400 78:22 619 1,600 400 80:20 620 1,400 400 78:22 621 1,400 400 78:22 622 1,000 800 56:44 624 2,400 1,100 69:31 626 1,200 800 60:40 249 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land Sherman Street lue.) 1 and LaFarge Avenue and between LaFarge Place and $2,400 $600 80:20 3 1,100 300 79:21 4 1,200 300 80:20 5 1,250 250 83:17 6 1,200 400 75:25 9 1,325 475 74:26 10 1,350 250 84:16 11 1,350 250 84:16 12 1,300 500 72:28 14 1,150 250 82:18 15 950 250 79:21 16 4,100 400 89:11 17 1,400 300 82:18 18 1,400 600 70:30 20 1,400 600 70:30 22 1,400 300 82:18 23 2,600 400 87:13 24 1,200 500 71:29 26 3,000 1,500 67:33 31 1,050 450 70:30 33 950 250 79:21 34 1,650 350 83:17 $231,855 $110,800 250 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM WARD FOUR, BOROUGH OF RICHMOND (The district consists of blocks Between Townsend and Norwood avenues and between Bay and Centre Streets; and Between Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad and Ormond Place and between Butler Place and Chestnut Avenue.) {Standard Composite Ratio: 39.51:60.49) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Increased Assessed Values Ward, Lot • ' s Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Townsend and Norwood avenues and between Bay and Centre streets.) 100 $3,100 $5,400 36:64 (Between Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad and Ormond Place and between Butler Place and Chestnut Avenue.) 114 $900 $2,100 30:70 $4,000 $7,500 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot ' Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between Townsend and Norwood avenues and between Bay and Centre streets.) 79 $3,800 $2,600 59:41 82 3,050 1,250 71:29 84 2,550 1,250 67:33 89 900 900 50:50 90 900 900 50:50 91 3,600 2,400 60:40 104 4,100 2,400 63:37 108 3,200 2,400 57:43 110 3,200 1,200 65:35 112 2,550 1,150 69:31 113 2,700 1,100 71:29 115 1,625 1,375 54:46 116 2,850 1,650 63:37 118 1,400 900 61:39 120 2,300 950 71:29 121 4,500 2,000 69:31 127 1,800 600 75:25 128 1,900 600 76:24 129 3,800 1,200 76:24 129a 1,300 300 81:19 (Between Staten Island Rapid Transit Railroad and Ormond Place and between Butler Place and Chestnut Avenue.) 126 $5,500 $1,500 79:21 131 1,500 500 75:25 395 5,250 1,750 75:25 406 1,200 600 67:33 418 1,275 225 85:15 424 5,100 900 85:15 430 900 200 82:18 440 1,250 250 83:17 442 1,150 250 82:18 444 1,150 250 82:18 446 2,300 500 82:18 450 1,250 250 83:17 452 1,150 250 82:18 454 1,150 250 82:18 456 1,250 250 83:17 458 1,250 250 83:17 460 1,050 450 70:30 464 5,550 450 93:7 471 8,750 2,250 80:20 $100,000 $38,450 251 SAMPLE DISTRICT FROM WARD FIVE, BOROUGH OF RICHMOND (The district consists of assessment blocks: 14 — ^between Amboy Road and Eureka Place and between Butler Avenue and Bentley Street — ; 21 — between E. Broadway and Amboy Road and between Johnson Avenue and WiUiam Street — ; and 25 — between Wood and Fisher avenues and between E. Broadway and Amboy Road.) {Standard Composite Ratio: 39.51:60.49) Group A: Parcels Whose Taxes Woxjld be Increased Assessed Values Ward. Lot or Map No. Improvements Land Ratio (Between Amboy Road and Eureka Place and between Butler Avenue and Bentley Street) 4 $1,025 $1,575 39:61 (Between E. Broadway and Amboy Road and between Johnson Avenue and William Street.) 3 $450 $850 35:65 38 700 1,100 39:61 $2,175 $3,525 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would be Decreased Ratio 58:42 72:28 48:52 85:15 78:22 74:26 74:26 68:32 68:32 63:37 65:35 70:30 58:42 62:38 56:44 62:38 60:40 61:39 60:40 58:42 78:22 75:25 68:32 72:28 71:29 66:34 68:32 41:59 56:44 82:18 50:50 41:59 77:23 Ward, Lot Assessed Values or Map No. Improvements Land ^mboy Road and Eureka Place and between Butler . 1 $1,900 $1,400 7 2,450 950 9 1,000 1,100 12 3,150 550 13 1,800 500 16 1,650 550 18 1,600 550 20 1,150 550 22 1,500 700 24 1,200 700 26 1,300 700 34 1,950 850 36 1,725 1,275 39 1,875 1,125 42 1,625 1,275 45 1,600 1,000 5. Broadway and Amboy Road and between Johnsor 6 2,400 1,600 9 1,900 1,200 11 2,500 1,700 14 1,500 1,100 16 7,550 2,150 20 2,025 675 22 1,700 800 24 1,300 500 25 1,500 600 27 1,725 875 30 1,825 875 33 600 875 36 950 750 41 5,600 1,200 47 900 900 51 775 1,125 55 2,000 600 252 Group B: Parcels Whose Taxes Would Be Decreased Assessed Values Ward, Lot ' ■ Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land (Between E. Broadway and Amboy Road and between Johnson Avenue and William Street.) — Continued. 57 $1,100 $700 56:44 59 1,300 700 65:35 61 1,800 700 72:28 63 900 600 60:40 65 1,800 600 68:32 67 1,000 600 63:37 69 1,450 675 69:31 71 1,525 1,075 59:41 74 1,075 425 72:28 76 1,125 775 59:41 79 700 300 70:30 81 3,100 1,700 65:.35 85 2,075 2,125 49:51 90 12,925 5,175 79:21 102 1,300 1,100 54:46 105 2,000 1,100 65:35 108 1,700 1,100 61:39 HI 2,300 1,100 68:32 114 2,500 1,100 69:31 117 2,600 1,100 70:30 120 1,675 825 67:33 122 2,400 1,000 71:29 124 2,576 825 76:24 126 1,900 2,900 40:60 135 2,950 950 76:24 137 1,600 1,200 57:43 140 2,000 1,200 63:37 143 1,500 1,200 56:44 146 1,500 1,200 56:44 149 1,300 1,800 42:58 170 5,600 800 87:13 185 1,200 300 80:20 Vood and Fisher Avenues and between E. Broadway and Amboj 1 $2,200 $1,200 65:35 5 2,175 725 75:25 7 3,450 1,350 72:28 10 1,525 675 69:31 12 1,175 1,225 49:51 15 1,100 700 61:39 17 1,500 1,000 60:40 20 2,700 1,000 73:27 22 3,850 1,150 77:23 26 1,400 600 70:30 28 1,700 600 74:26 29 1,400 600 70:30 30 1,400 600 70:30 32 1,700 600 74:26 33 1,900 600 76:24 36 2,350 1,150 67:33 38 1,400 600 70:30 39 3,425 475 88:12 41 1,625 475 77:23 42 2,550 1,150 69:31 45 1,425 675 68:32 54 2,075 1,225 63:37 56 1,400 600 70:30 58 1,400 600 70:30 60 2,075 725 74:26 62 1,900 700 73:27 64 1,900 700 73:27 66 1,600 700 70:30 253 Group B: Parcels Whose T AXES Would Be Decree ^SED Assessed Values Ward, Lot Ratio or Map No. Improvements Land i/'ood and Fisher avenues and between E. Broadway and Amboy Road— 73 $1,900 $600 76:24 75 2,400 600 80:20 85 1,200 1,800 40:60 87 1,550 750 67:33 89 2,275 825 73:27 94 1,725 775 69:31 96 1,725 575 75:25 98 2,150 650 77:23 100 1,825 975 65:35 103 1,725 1,675 51:49 108 1,325 775 63:37 110 1,050 650 62:38 112 1,925 675 64:36 114 1,150 650 64:36 116 2,425 675 78:22 118 1,850 1,050 64:36 121 2,700 1,000 63:37 125 2,075 925 69:31 126 3,425 675 84:16 130 4,525 675 87:13 132 2,750 650 81:19 134 1,475 725 67:33 138 1,625 675 71:29 142 2,525 675 79:21 144 2,150 650 77:23 146 1,650 650 72:28 $241,600 $111,650 Continued) 254 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW AN INITIAL FINE OF 25 CENTS WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY OVERDUE. aAN 23 1933 SEP 23 1933 NOV 19 t933 T APR 211923 May ft ^'isi RIVERSIDE INTERLIBRARY LOAN LI) 21-50m-8,-3i YD 01447 / 'K / I