TAXATION ABSOLUTELY JUST AND EQUITABLE TAXATION ON THE PLAN OF UTILITY OR REASONABLE ANNUAL AVERAGE RENTAL VALUE. BY NAPOLEON WAGNER. $21,900. Their cousins No. 2 No. 31 bear the same relation, yet there is only 9,000 lbs. between their weight. Is it the diet makes the difference? Do Nos. 30 and 31 live on a diet call- ed special privilege? It is said when one gets used to it — you don’t like to give it up. See diagram blocks, page more relatives of the same family; they live all over every city; they have oil tongues and honeyed words but are undesiralyle citizens. You want to shun them as you would a horse thief. It is, perhaps, the largest family on earth, yet there is no consanguinity Popular Price 15 cents, at Kendrick-Bellamy Book and Art Store, Corner Sixteenth and Stout Sts., Denver, Colorado. Two brothers (lots No. 3 and No. 30 ) . They live just across the alley in the same block No. 161, East Denver. They are nearly twins — both the same age and size — each resides third door from the corner — yet they can- not be weighed on the same scale, because No. 3 weighs 12,500 lbs. more than his brother and has an extra and unneces- sary value burden to carry of Clark Quick-Printing Co., Lawrence 1332-1334. FOREWORD. We fully realize the degree of success enjoyed at the start will greatly influence its rapid future usefulness. We all must know this plan is founded on a truthful and honest basis; hence we sincerely appeal loudly to all educators, those in official position and all others who can without prejudice lend a helping hand in giving it the widest publicity possible, to the end that we may eliminate the bad and save the good. Pro Bono Publico. Second Edition. SPECIAL NOTICE 'Phis plan of taxation is copyrighted and published not for pe- cuniary gain, but to give it a name or identity, and to accomplish the purpose for which it is intended, viz. : The betterment and uplift of the entire human family to which it is truthfully and lovingly dedi- cated. Copy will be furnished free to any city adopting it and com- plying with the author’s request. We would like very much to give it to all the people gratis, but if it should prove very popular — have a great demand — it might lead us into deep water financially. Hence we decided, because of its great usefulness, to make it popular — if possible put it into every home — by making the price 15 cents^ which is about the cost of the material, printing, circulating, etc. It can be had at The Kendrick-Bellamy Book & Art Co., corner Six- teenth & Stout Streets, Denver, Colorado, or address No. 1101 Emer^ son Street, Denver, Colorado. 33 "S-S. \AJ COPYRIGHT, 1911 BY NAPOLEON WAGNER, M. D, LL. B. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. n i SAYS ONLY SANE TAXATION IS TREATING OF ALL ALIKE. MUST BE GENERAL, UNIFORM AND DIVIDED EQUABLY ACCORDING TO VALUES. (To the Republican.) — A sane method of taxation is to treat all alike; any divergence from this method, no matter how slight, is bor- dering on the insane. In order to accomplish this it will be necessary to adopt a few general rules and definitions : 1. We will first define a corner: A corner is any amount of land which absorbs and appropriates all special benefits of a principal street in addition to the usual benefits derived from a cross street and alley, viz. : Front, side and rear entrance ; it takes to itself all the frontage of abutting principal street. For example : It may consist of a very narrow strip, even of only a few feet or inches in width, just sufficient to build a spite wall, or it may extend to the middle of a block. To illustrate: If steel spite walls were built on the two corners of any half block, say of two feet in width and 12 or less stories in height, all the rest of the ground between these two walls are I inside, or middle, lots, and should be treated practically alike, except I for a slight additional valuation for those nearest to the corners, j ^ 2. We will next define inside lots as all ground not included in I the corner, completely shut out from the principal street. It may I include every inch of land between the two spite walls which derive I only the usual benefit from a cross street and alley, viz.: front and j rear entrance. 3. Utility must govern all value, whether inside or corner lots. There is no safer or saner rule applicable than the reasonable average annual rental value, or, if vacant property, the probable utility, estab- ;? lished by the general custom of the immediate neighborhood, of the ■ reasonable average annual rental value. 4. All lots possess a speculative value over and above the rea- : sonable average annual rental value. This applies alike to all corner and inside lots and is not subject to taxation because this so-called I speculative value is unascertainable. Valuation is the act of ascer- I tabling the worth of a thing, or the estimated worth of a thing. It I differs from price, which does not always afford a true criterion of value, for a thing may be bought very dear or very cheap. 5. The so-called key to a corner is speculative value — a night- ! mare, a dream, a delusion— is chance; it may never materialize nor , unlock anything, and is not subject to taxation. f35799 4 6. Consolidation: Each foot of ground added to a corner or spite wall in a good business district adds many fold to its former utility, its rental and real value. The highest type of consolidation and the greatest value is produced where an entire block, including the alley, is utilized by one owner. Perhaps the second highest type and value is produced where one-half a block is operated and managed by one owner. The value of consolidation lessens as the amount of ground occupied decreases. Hence consolidation always should be encouraged, because here is where the greatest value lies. 7. Two city blocks immediately adjoining may be immensely different in value because owned, operated and rented differently, yet each enjoying the best possible management with present improve- ments and conditions. 8. Generally, but not always, the more owners in a given busi- ness block the less value it has. The corners predominate, if they are large, stylish and up-to-date ; they not only greatly increase their own former value, but create a new and additional value for the entire block. 9. It is almost superfluous to say we cannot tax a thing now more than its reasonable annual rental value because we believe and feel in the future it will be worth more. All assessments must be based upon present cash value or proportion of present cash value. 10. The broad, sane, commonsense rule governing the whole sub- ject of taxation is: It must be general, it must be uniform, and it must be apportioned equally according to value, and no portion can legally be levied upon prospective or future value. This is absolutely necessary to make any tax lawful. All special and invidious discrim- inations against individuals are illegal and for all such cases a general right exists to assessors or proper officers to refund to individuals any sums paid by them which are found to have been wrongfully exacted or for any reason are inequitable. 11. If these few plain, simple rules are complied with a given assessor can hardly make a serious error or mistake in any given case. Napoleon Wagner. The above was published in The Denver Republican June 10, 1911. IT REALLY CONSTITUTES OUR PLAN. The following is explanatory and is intended to outline the method of putting the above plan in practical everyday use. Our observation on taxation may materially aid in this respect. Each city can aid one 5 another and us in better perfecting the details which we heartily wel- come. To the end that we may all unitedly enjoy and live under the protection and manifold blessings of the ideal or perfect system, then we shall truly call the whole system ours. The origin of all value is use, hence, uniformly value all lands, improvements, personal property, franchises, rights of way, railway property, docks, piers, wharves, bridges and all other property of whatsoever kind or nature; which is subject to taxation, at its full cash value. A NEW PLAN FOR EQUALIZING TAXATION. On the basis of the reasonable annual average utility or probable utility if vacant. Take only the utility of ground floor to establish- the value of lots. To establish the value of buildings take the entire utility or if vacant probable utility, evidenced by sworn annual state- ments of both tenants and owners, penalizing false statement reports, etc. Slight modifications may be made by ever keeping in mind and adhering closely to the great controlling factor uniformity of utility or probable utility to ascertain just value, and to conform to the stat- utory requirements of taxation of the different states. By the applica- tion and use of such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, real and personal. This annual statistical information will give exact justice to all alike, it will favor none and harm none. No one will pay on fictitious or speculative value. All will pay only on amount received or receiv- able, all at the same proportionate value. If this system is properly executed and carried out, it will be the most ideal and just method the human mind has devised for taxing all exactly alike according to equit- able value. When investigating the value of business blocks in Denver, we found some with only one story buildings on lots Nos. 1 and 2 and likewise on lots Nos. 3 and 4, here we took the total rental value of each which admitted of absolute correct comparison to ascertain the value of the lots alone, then later valued each improvement separately to ascertain the value of the buildings. We then decided it would be just as fair and absolutely correct a basis to take the total rental value of the ground floor and basement only, no matter how improved, to ascertain and compare the value of the lots alone. It may be contended when we get and use the rental value of the 6 ground floor only to measure and compare the value of the lots alone we by so doing are valuing part of the building, known as the first floor and basement with the lots and are therefore valuing that part of the building twice unless we deduct this when we come to value the building or improvement separately from the lot on which it stands. Obviously this is not true nor is the above argument tenable. We simply use this knowledge or information of rental value of ground floor as the only correct measuring tape which is elastic enough to ex- actly fit any piece of property, no matter what shape or where located, with absolute honesty and fairness. This will have nothing whatever to do with putting proper value on buildings or improvements separ- ately on the basis of the reasonable annual rental value. TO VALUE BUSINESS PROPERTY. 1st. Divide any block into four equal parts — then value each i/4 separately. 2nd. Take the total rent of ground floor only to establish the value of the lots without the improvement of any practical number of square feet or lots not to exceed % of block, which will admit of fair comparison with the total rent of like or equal number of square feet or lots immediately adjoining or corresponding, total not to exceed the 1/4 block. 3rd. Then divide the latter into the former and the result will be the rent ratio which is the exact number of times the corner is worth more than the adjoining lots. 4th. This will elim- inate all chance, guess work, fictitious or speculative value. 5th. This will be elastic enough to go up or down, it will keep exact step with the stationary, rapid or slow increase or decrease of value from year to year, always stable and uniform according to exact value. 6th. Each ^ block must be valued separately, because when we go beyond the 1/4 block line, we are encroaching upon the sphere influence and value of the next corner, all of which may be very different from the one we have just valued. 7th. Value the second corner the same as No. 1, and the 3rd and 4th likewise. 8th. Alley influence need not be taken into special consideration because each 14 block enjoys prac- tically the same benefits from it. Use simple percentage of value of the full or standard size lot to ascertain the correct value of odd feet or inches in depth or width. TO VALUE RESIDENCE PROPERTY. We find it impracticable to give detailed direction and instruction for valuing all residence property, nor do we deem it necessary, be- cause different cities and assessors use slightly different methods, both 7 in valuing the lots and the improvements. This will do no harm, pro- viding they use the correct basis to ascertain the true value. This is equally true in valuing personal property, as well as farm land and all other property and improvements. The statutes of the different states vary somewhat in directing and commanding just how this shall be done, some go into greater detail than others. In all cases the statutes must be fully complied with. Our plan recognizes and wel- comes this aid. Our general directions will be sufficiently explicit to enable anyone with average intelligence to make correct application of the same, viz. : In all cases value the land separately; value all improvements separately; then add the two together for total value. Value uni- formly all lands, improvements, personal property, franchises, rights of way, railway property, docks, piers, wharves, bridges, and all other property of whatsoever kind or nature, which is subject to taxation at its full cash value,' the basis of the reasonable annual average utility or probable utility if vacant, by the application and use of such regu- lations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, real and personal. Maps should be prepared and used to indicate the frontage value along each side of every block, viz. : The value per front foot of a vacant inside, standard size lot, with a different color of figures to show marking of corner values, in both business and resi- dence. This will eliminate all possibility of missing or not valuing each piece of property. It will show relative value at a glance. Acre property should be marked the price in dollars per acre. These maps should be arranged in numerical order and drawn to a uniform scale, and re-marked each year of valuation and for general use of any tax- payer, together with the open door for use of all records, maps, charts, etc., of the assessor’s office, including the widest publicity. Do this honestly and conscientiously five years and you will have no “ma- chine” or graft in municipal government, because throilgh this and the county treasurer’s office come the sinews of war for good or evil. It may be said no rent comes from the value of City lots alone. If so, it is impossible to separate it from that which comes from the building or improvement. Indeed they claim it all comes from the building. Obviously this is not tenable, in technical theory it might be correct but in practice this theory will not hold good. They must both be used together, one without the other is impossible. The build- ing must have a place on which to rest, before any value can come from it for fair or reasonable returns, hence there is a relative value between 8 the vacant ground and the building. No belter or fairer basis can be made than to take the utility or rent or probable utility or rent if vacant of the ground floor or principal story only to ascertain and compare the value of one vacant lot with another. The above correct definition of a corner, the illustration of which is perhaps somewhat magnified. The so-called spite walls generally mean a strip 50 feet wide, or two of our lots, we believe never less in the entire business district, calls forceable attention to the fact, that some reasonable provision should be made regulating the use of busi- ness corners. Preventing any owner by law from destroying or devi- talizing the original inherent value of the full one-quarter block — from the best or principal street — by ownership or use of less than that amount. Obviously this is a community moral and public wrong, calling loudly for a remedy. Would it be for one moment allowed in Ger- many? In Germany a community right prevails over private usurpa- tion or lessening of communal value in a given corner and either abso- lute prevention (of this well recognized public wrong) or annually penalizing the small strip on the corner to the full amount it lessens the value of balance of the one-quarter block. Any competent court of equity in the United States, by either permanently enjoining the wrong or imposing an annual fine or tax for such time as the wrong may exist, undoubtedly would enforce this right. Why should a City lose this (in some cases immense) extra value each year for taxation? Does not the City per se by its inhabitants create all demand utility or value ? If so, who will dare say it has not the right to regulate what it produces — to prevent the loss of this great economic value. Thereby making 16th or the best street property, out of cross street or cheap lots. Is it not contrary to the assessor’s official oath, as well as silly and ridiculous, to try to save this loss by shifting the extra value on the adjoining lots, which have just been robbed and deprived of all extra earning power or corner influence they originally possessed? Is this not adding insult to injury ? Is this not exactly what the pres- ent system of taxation is doing? Is it not what nearly all other systems have been doing? Is this not the proper time to discard all such unfair and unjust systems ? Is it not the proper time to at once accept and adopt the Napoleon Wagner System of absolutely fair and honest taxation to rich and poor alike, and especially when we have and can find nothing nearly as good to take its place ? 9 It is truly said we ought not to tear down unless we offer some- thing better to replace the deposed structure, method or system. Ours is an entirely original and new plan which can only give exact justice on the mutual plan of common honesty. OBSERVATION ON TAXATION. The origin of all value is use or probable use. All the so-called units which are used as a convenience to measure with, are but frac- tional parts of a normal sized lot. Their correct value can only be ascertained by utility. If this is true of the unit, it is doubly true of the full sized lot. The separate utility or value of the front, middle or rear part of a standard sized lot or plot is unascertainaUe. Any attempt to do so will be vague, indefinite, impracticable and can only result in chance, guess, discrimination and ultimate failure, for want of feasible, demonstrable utility as a correct basis. Correct value established by utility or probable utility can only be had by using as a basis the entire standard size lot or plot or some practical proportion of the whole. Then use simple percentage of value of the standard size lot to ascertain the value of odd feet or inches in depth or width. Not a percentage or table based on a greater value for the front than the rear, or any other part of the standard sized lot. This will posi- tively interdict and justly prohibit the use of any and all units or tables of percentage, based upon a value of one part more than any other part of the standard size lot. Naturally this will prohibit the use of the Hoffman-Neill rule, now in use in New York City, the Chi- cago plan, the Philadelphia plan and the Somers or unit system, etc., because all of these cities use a unit foot, 1 foot front by 100 feet deep away from all corner influences, etc., to measure with, or other methods which are based on a greater value than its size is, in propor- tion to the whole or standard size lot. It must be borne in mind the unit is a convenience only in making comparison ; it has nothing whatever to do with value. The unit must depend upon ^itility to give it the proper value or all will be out of proportion to relative value. If a unit of any size is used to measure with, it must be based on the fractional part of the standard size lot, hence its value will be in exact proportion to its size of the whole lot. If the unit used is $100, too high or too low in measuring a lot fifty times its size, it will render value fifty times $100, or $5,000 — out of proper proportion to the correct value of the lot. Experience shows it is generally too low. Can any city afford to lose all this immense 10 amount — many millions of dollars of value which are annually escap- ing all taxation? In simple justice must we not consider all such methods obsolete? As far as we know there is no plan or system in use any- where, except the one we suggest, which we believe alone can and will unerringly and justly do the work. Its adoption will be no costly or dangerous experiment! it is so short and simple — a child can under- stand it. Valuing lots with the same mathematical precision in the different blocks similarly situated does not make it correct. If one is wrong all are wrong. It is poor excuse or justification that it does likewise with the next block, or the next or the next, etc. Two or more wrongs never yet made one right — each adds insult to injury. If the basis of any plan or system is ivrong the whole thing must necessarily be wrong. All lawful taxation must be a blanket or cover of uniform thick- ness spread and applied to all lots in a given block exactly alike as to REAL VALUE. Herein is where most all system fail, because tliey take it for granted if the tax is spread and applied uniformly according to number, location and position, this makes it uniform according to value, which is far from the truth. This fallacious error and argu- ment has been adopted in the assessor’s office and is in pretty general use through the country. Why require two, three or more owners to pay on valuations of from 5% to 50% more than each other, when ail derive and can only realize the same amount of rent and are practically of the same value? This is exactly what most systems are doing today, because of their mathematical jugglery of prepared tables to find or locate value, and especially the pernicious percentage tables which are nearly all on a false basis. To illustrate, an assessor’s official figures given for block are as follows, viz. : Lots 1 and 2, $255,500. Lots 3 and 4, $87,600. Hence 1 and 2 pays on valuation of a small fraction less than thrice as much as 3 and 4, when it should pay on valuation of 5.08 times as much as 3 and 4, as evidenced by each 30 days rent receipts of ground floor only to admit of fair and just comparison. Lots 1 and 2 receive $1,270 per month ; 3 and 4 receive $250.00 per month. If both are taxed alike, 1 and 2 should pay 5.08 times more than 3 and 4, which equals $445,008, but as it only pays on valuation of $255,500, it there- fore entirely escapes paying on valuation of $198,509 each year. Nos. 3 and 4 are valued at $20,300 more than Nos. 5 and 6 and $36,600 more 11 than Nos. 7 and 8; is this not ridiculous, from 15% to 50% when all have the same ground rental? What is true of this block and corner, is practically true of every other simularly, situated, to a greater or less degree, in the entire business district in many cities. Some 1 and 2 lot corners escaping payment for from $100,000 to nearly $200,000 each year, while on its apparent face it does not seem to make so much difference where four or more corner lots are held by one title. Yet this is an enormous error, because this greater tax value should be apportioned to all other tax payers in the city, lessening each one’s tax to that extent. We believe it is apparent that each first and second lot on every corner in tlv entire business district will be greatly undervalued, viz. : approximately. The following tabulated figures do not represent an entire loss by escape payment, but it does represent entire relative or discriminatory loss, in addition to a very great total loss of value, which proves the imparative necessity of just equalization. Blk. 209 Lots 31 and S2—Rent ratio 3.80 Escapes Bayt. on Val. $104,240 Blk. 209 Lots 1 and 2=Rent ratio 3.57 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 82,420 Blk. 195 Lots 1 and 2— Rent ratio 3.68 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 94,960 Blk. 140 Lots 31 and Z2=Eent ratio 4. Escapes Bayt. on Val. 204,000 Blk. 141 Lots 17 and lS=Rent ratio 5.08 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 189,508 Blk. 196 Lots 17 and lS=Rent ratio 4.31 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 105,633 Blk. 98 Lots 15 and l^=Rent ratio 6.25 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 403,075 Blk. 161 Lots 1 and 2=Eent ratio 3.40 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 126,160 Blk. 67 Lots 17 and lS=Rent ratio 4.43 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 88,829 Blk. 76 Lots 31 and S2=Rent ratio 4.84 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 172,208 Blk. 40 Lots 17 and IS— Rent ratio 3. Escapes Bayt. on Val. 28,500 Blk. 128 Lots ' - 17 and lS=Rent ratio 4.82 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 281,386 Blk. 128 Lots 15 and IQ— Rent ratio 4.77 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 281,067 Blk. 196 Lots 31 and S2=Rent ratio 4.01 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 99,275 Blk. 175 Lots 15 and lQ=Rent' ratio 3.68 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 84,680 Blk. 161 Lots 31 and 32=Rent ratio 3.25 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 93,180 Blk. 209 Lots 15 and lQ=Rent ratio 4.62 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 135,088 Blk. 130 Lots 17 and IS— Rent ratio 3.65 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 164,900 Blk. 107 Lots 15 and lQ=Rent ratio 3.53 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 137,240 Blk. 161 Lots 17, 18 and 19=Rent ratio 3.54 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 223,850 Blk. 107 Lots 30, 31 and S2=Rent ratio 4.66 Escapes Payt. on Val. 271,384 Blk. 140 Lots 17-18 19 and 20=Rent ratio 4.75 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 262,137 Blk. 129 Lots 13-14 15 and IQ— Rent ratio 3.22 Escapes Bayt. on Val. 127,482 Rent rafio=The number of times the corner is worth more than the ad- joining lots or equal number of square feet, established, by utility of the ground floor of each. Where both or all make the best possible use all should be assessed at the same relative value. We judge the future by the past and present, hence the reasonahle annual average past and present cash rent or prohahle utility is the proper test for correct basis of valuation either for sale or assessment. There is no better or more correct test of true value. Recorded leases for future rent by irresponsible ten- 12 ants, which may be voided or broken at will of tenant, is like a rope of sand, of little help in arriving at real value. An occasional odd sale may be high or low and likewise misleading in arriving at real value. But practical every day utility, cash rent in hand each 30 days never misleads any one, and on this you can always bank. If we analyze and study the foregoing figures carefully, it will be easy to see that a great injustice will be done and over-assessment of every 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th lots owned and used independent of the corners in the entire business part of the City. Because it is an established fact and truth, proven by utility sales, leases, rent, etc., which are the safest and best basis of all value, backed up by the community opinion of the very best real'estate men, viz.: That these 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th lots, where owned separately and used separately, are worth only a very small per cent more than lots in the middle of any given block. No system or tables which finds, locates or renders two or more corner lot values the same regardless of ownership, not who, hut 1, 2 or more owners, etc., under the best possible management can be appor- tioned equally according to value. This separate ownership, use, etc., is entirely different and very much less value where cut up into small holdings. Tables, scales, measures and methods must make exceptions in these cases if apportioned equally according to value. Let us not call any method scientific or equitable which renders such errors and injustice. Other fairer methods must be applied to fit these excep- tional cases if justice and equity are had. It condones the wrong and indeed puts a high premium on lots 1 and 2 for appropriating to itself and for its own use all the greater value 3, 4, 5 and 6 or more inherently possessed until they were de- barred by the act of Nos. 1 and 2 of erecting a barrier or wall. Saying thou shalt come so far but no farther or I will shut your light out. Not only daylight but all prospects of extra financial light as well. This may be according to our standard of commercialism, legal and customary, but does not relieve it from being a moral and community wrong. If all business corners were so used it would prevent all large and valuable use of every kind, vdiich must have large floor space as well as light and air from the corners. It is safe to say it would destroy nine-tenths of the big and very best business in your city. Do you want to encourage small business or sulfer it to destroy millions of value of large business ; or do you want to encourage beautiful, large airy, light uniform buildings, suitable for all purposes? If so, then 13 you want to encourage mutual or otherwise, consolidation. In con- solidation and use of lots not merely 1, 2, 3, 4, but 5, 6, 7, 8 or more lie the great economic value, not only to the owner or owners, but to the entire community. This view should always be encouraged by assessors or others having official control. Instead of letting I and 2 off each year by nonpayment of taxes on valuation of $198,508 or more as proven by income. Should it not be penalized with some extra taxation, not only for depriving all other lots of their inalienable and natural rights which might share in this extra valuation, but they, Nos. 1 and 2, by their will, act and conduct permanently deprive the community. City, county and state of a large amount of taxes annu- ally, which would be derived if reasonable consolidation were had or 1 and 2 be required to pay their fair share. To my mind the weak spot in most systems is in making no differ- ence in valuing a corner of one, two, three, four or more lots, where the ownership and use are in one or more persons. We all know it is a demonstrable fact when cut up and used in small tracts the less value and use it has. To illustrate, take four separate owners and users of the four separate lots on any given business corner of say 25x125 feet. The only one out of the four who would be justified by pru- dence and good business judgment in erecting a fine building, say 12 stories or less high, would be No. 1 on the corner. This would so devitalize the other sites of Nos. 2, 3 and 4 that if they erected the same style, height and cost of buildings on their respective lots each would be so dark and “undesirable, practically a tunnel 25x125 feet, with but little light from front and rear. That if they could be rented at all, perhaps for not much more than these systems would demand of each to help pay the tax of No. 1, which completely sapped the corner influence. And at the same time. No. 1 might be deriving a golden income of its sweet corner influence of 3, 5, or 10 times more than 2, 3 or 4, or all of them combined. Yet this makes no difference, so says some of these systems. We prefer to reserve our say. But submit to any cool, sane, unbiased, uninfluenced fair-minded men, if this is not enough to condemn all such systems. Shall these four cases all be tarred with the same stick and weighed with the same loaded scales for the great profit and benefit of No. 1 and to the great injury and damage to Nos. 2, 3 and 4. If this unquestioned fault cannot be recognized and properly repaired, must we not in fairness to all, quickly condemn the whole system or our assessors for adopting it? This corner influence has greatly troubled all systems for ages. It is comparatively easy to value inside lots by any fair system. 14 i\Iany millions of dollars of land values in Denver escape all taxa- tion owing to present and past methods. This we believe to be a con- servative estimate. The same is probably true of most American cities. This statement sounds perfectly incredible, until it is explained that most of the methods or systems now in use are of the kind that taxpay- ers are expected to pay for, but are not expected to know anything about. We now offer you a system as simple as the a, b, c’s, which you can all easily understand, and the sum total of cost to put it into effect is average common^ sense. Underlying all shortcomings of American municipal government are ignorance and indifference of the taxpayers, brought about by shameful and ruthless disregard of fair and honest protests of indi- vidual rights. This can easily be changed by education, which all taxpayers will eagerly seek, only when assured of absolute equality and fairness to all alike. To illustrate, JJ nif ormity in appearance on its face does not make uniformity of value. It requires use or utility to establish uniform value; there is no other way. This use or utility varies with almost every business corner, hence it is rank discrimina- tion to tax all lots alike, simply because they are numbered alike or located alike or are alike with corresponding lots in adjoining or other blocks. Courts hold discrimination is unconstitutional. What every community needs is n permanent taxpayers^ organiza- tion, clothed ivith absolute authority to hear all worthy complaints and right every wrong. Then give its daily routine work the widest pub- licity and you cannot fail. Not the ordinary taxpayers league,- largely political, clothed only with advisory powers to find fault, make general complaint and do nothing. This permanent organization would be a great power in solving civic problems, supervising expendi- ture, tax levy, budget, relative value, etc., etc., but you must get the right men — not failures or office seekers. We challenge any honest man to find just fault with the basis, fair- ness and outline of our proposed plan. We well know many details should and will be added, as in years to come they materialize and crystalize into proper form and use for a^ffiption If this cannot be done, then let us quickly adopt it and all for once, enjoy a square and equal deal ; and forever cut off, shut off and put a permanent stop to all special privilege. AVe mistake the temper of the Denver taxpayers — if they are going to stand for such scientific work scientific escape of 15 paying on millions of value by the few, who can most or all afford to pay their full and fair share. Fair, equal and ahsolutely just taxation should be made a para- mount issue in every city, village and hamlet, and kept permanently before the people until adopted. What we ivant and must have is per- mament organization of sincere advocates to full inform the, people, of the existing evil and clearly point the way to a practical and feasible remedy. Then you can trust the people for prompt and accurate re- sults, — The people have the final say — Obviously 1 and 2 are so greedy and bold they are not merely satisfied with depriving Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of their inalienable earning power, utility and value, but are shifting a large part of their fair share of taxes annually on these poor lots, which they have just de- prived. They have no right to do either. First, this extra burden must be shifted back where it rightfully belongs on Nos. 1 and 2. Second, we must ask our courts if Nos. 1 and 2 have a legal right to do this trick, without being penalized annually to make whole all the neighboring lots which suffer injury and damage. See illustrated blocks for justly equalizing and fairly comparing the two methods. 16 BLOCK NO. EAST DENVER, Valued by the Somers or Unit System. $ 33,100 $ 1,975 ^ CO CO CO o 0 M 01 Oi th cq (Nl O O tH CO ^ O Oi O (CJ < O $148,000 1 82,500 2 61,500 3 43,400 4 41,600 5 36,000 6 36,000 7 36,000 8 36,00 9 37,400 10 38,000 11 42,000 12 '54,080 13 72,800 14 119,600 15 231,520 16 53,480 B 32 $140,000| 31 73,50o' 30 49,000' , , 1 29 45,500 1 28 42,200 27 38,000 26 37,500 25 37,500 24 37,500 23 37,500' 22 ■ 40,500 21 46,550 ' 20 57,150; 19 65,500; 18 101,550 < c 17 204,250 c c cc o CO rH to CO O cq O t- 48,450 Land value of the same block as appears on the opposite page herein, according to the present method of the Somers or Unit System now being tried in Denver. A=The amount of over valuation of each inside lot. B=The amount of under valuation of each pair of corner lots. C=The per cent of annual rent on value of each lot. 17 BLOCK NO 16 L EAST DENVER, Valued by Our Proposed System. S'! ZO LO . o r-l 1>- o CO o • o o o o cc o o C