The Somers Unit System of Realty V aluation assessments o £ Land and Build¬ ings. It is “com¬ mon sense sys- tematically ar¬ ranged.” In seven American cities the Somers System has solved the difficulties of the assessors, and has en¬ abled them to distribute the tax burden proportion^ ally to the value of the property. Manufacturers’ Appraisal Company CLEVELAND, 0. STATE ST. ADAMS ST. UN IT * SOOO © ♦ 1,420. 848 * 162,762 ® * 84.000 % • 2,756,303 ®3 © 4 1,45S, 948 * ® 66 480 4 209.880 © © 3 88. I 32 ' 4 755 m 0 00 © ♦ 130 , 000 i & 135,SCO © © $ 474, I 60 14 , 12.0 *143. 6SO © © 4 469,4-35 4 14-5 . 000 ©■ * 833,62S UNIT* 6000 -JACKSON BOUL. Distribution of value by area on the basis of the unit values indicated on the four sides of the block—that is the effect of each unit value upon the various portions. In this way is first ascertained the gross land value of the block. (See inside back cover for distribution of value by lots.) UNIT #5000 WABASH AVE The Somers Unit System of Realty Valuation is founded upon the law of constant effect of depth on the value of city sites. The Somers Unit System of Realty Valuation consists of the mathematical formulae and mechan¬ ical devices for using that law so that real and rela¬ tive values of actual sites may be ascertained. The Somers Unit System of Realty Valuation Realty assessments are everywhere inequitable and with¬ out proportion as between one parcel and another. The prin¬ cipal cause of this universal condition has been the lack of accurate and scientific assessment rules. The Somers Unit System of Realty Valuation, when in¬ stalled by assessors with the expert assistance furnished by the Manufacturers’ Appraisal Company, will correct all the evils of inequitable land and building assessment. Its cost is reasonable, and no city can afford to miss the opportunity to correct what is probably the weakest point of efficiency in its administration of municipal affairs. The system known as the Somers Unit System of Realty 'Valuation was invented and perfected by Mr. W. A. Somers, after many years of study and consideration of land values in many cities of this country. The Somers Unit Sys¬ tem makes it easy to exercise judgment of values of land in cities, and makes certain the application of that judgment to the varying conditions that actually exist. Under this system the judgment of the value of land is expressed in the value of a “unit foot.” A unit foot is a frontage of ground one foot wide and 100 feet deep, located in the central section of a block at a distance from any street corner or other influence that might affect its value, other than that which it obtains by reason of access to the life and business of the city through its own frontage. By confining the expression of judgment of value to a unit foot, the subsidiary factors of value—size and shape—are at first eliminated. The mind of the person whose duty it is tg = 35489 2 THE SOMERS UNIT SYSTEM m & IA?As express a judgment as to value is thus called upon to take into consideration the one factor of location. By comparing the street where the judgment is to be expressed with others of known values, it is found that the judgment is more easily, and therefore more accurately, formed; it is much easier for a person to compare one side of a street with the other, a section of a street with another sec¬ tion, one street with another, than it is to compare a lot of one size and shape on one street with another lot of another size and shape on another street, even though the two are in the same neighborhood. When the value of a unit foot has been fixed on fhe four sides of a city block, the exercise of judgment of the value of land in that city block is complete. The Somers System pro¬ vides a method of applying that judgment accurately and scien¬ tifically to all the land in that block. The factors that affect the value of a given piece of real estate are three in number—location, that is the kind of a street that the lot fronts on,—size and shape. In addition, some lots have additional factors; they may be at or near corners, where an additional value exists by reason of that fact, or they may have alley frontage, which gives an added value. MATHEMATICAL RELATION OF VALUE. The Somers System is a system for the valuation of a unit of quantity, and a system of applying the value, as expressed in dollars, of that quantity to every other piece of’land affected by the same influences of accessibility. The valuing of the unit of quantity is decided upon after the very widest “view of the premises.” Not only do the assessors “view the premises” during the assessing period, but they “view the' premises” as citizens of their city for many years before they become assessors: It is fair to presume that they are chosen to be assessors because of their very wide knowledge of values, both relative and real, of the items of land and buildings that go to make up their city; this knowledge could not be possessed by a blind man nor by one who entered their city but a week before; it can only be possessed by those who have “viewed the premises” for many years and known the relation of usefulness of location to location, street to street, part of street to another part of the same street. Not only do assessors have this knowledge, but they recog¬ nize that others have it. They can invite, under the Somers System method, the opinion of all citizens who have also been “viewing the premises,” and using the premises, too. I2' nr ' >Vl OF REALTY VALUATION 3 This opinion is freely given and the assessors may use this opinion together with their own to pass judgment upon the relative land values of their city. The Somers System makes all this wide publicity possible, but it does not do any valuing. It must be apparent that if the value of a given piece of ground is arrived at—no matter what method therefor is em¬ ployed—another piece of ground just like it, and affected by the same influences of-accessibility, must be worth exactly the same. The mathematical relation of the value of two such pieces of property is easily seen. That such a mathematical relation exists between values is self-evident. That there is a mathematical relation between the values of two sites, of dis¬ similar size or shape, but 4 affected by the same influences of accessibility, must be as apparent and self-evident as in the first illustration. At any rate all students pf such matters agree that this is so; every assessing department in the United States that has any standing whatsoever, recognizes this fact, and attempts to work out mathematically what that relation is. The Somers System is simply the highest perfection of this attempt. It is a set of workable tables to express the mathe¬ matical relation of the value of sites affected by the same influences of accessibility, and between any two or more parts of the same site. On account of the very large number of parcels of land in a city, all varying in size and shape, the mathematical com¬ parison must be made with the value of a unit of quantity. A careful investigation of the Somers System discloses the fact that it is exact, and flexible; that it provides for •publicity in advance of the assessment, and that by it is worked out into final values the community’s opinion of the relative values of sites. THE USE OF UNITS. The maps used show only the streets and blocks, without any other lines or marks. In the streets in front of each block is written the value of a foot front 100 feet deep, uninfluenced by any corner or alley effect. The following diagram will illustrate. . (See Diagram No. 1, Page’4.) Having fixed the value of units on the four sides of a block it is then possible to figure the value of individual lots. Some are longer than 100 feet and some are shorter. Hence, it is ad¬ visable to use some rule. The following curve is a scale arrived at by tabulating the opinions of many owners of land (see Diagram No. 2, Page 4) : 4 THE SOMERS UNIT SYSTEM U) H ST sioo $300 (fl H (Diagram No. 1.) (/> H ro o o U1 H ST. ST PERCENTAGE OP VALUE OF REALTY VALUATION o VARYING DEPTHS OF LOTS. The bottom line.of diagram No. 2 represents the lot-depth. To use the curve for a lot 80 feet deep, find the 80-foot line, then follow up the perpendicular line to the curve intersection; this point carried out to the left will give the per cent of the unit which produces the frontage value for an 80-foot depth. This “curve of value” when reduced to figures is as follows for the principal depths: Feet Deep. Per Cent of Unit. Feet Deep. Per Cent, of Unit. 0. 120. ... 107.05 10. . . . . 25.00 130... . . . 110.50 20. . . . . 41.00 140. ... 113^)0 30. . . . . 54.00 160. . . . 116.80 40. .... 64.00 170. . . . 118.40 . 50. .... 72.50 180. . . . 119.80 60. . . . . 79.50 190. ... 121.00 • 70. .... 85.60 210. . . . 122.95 80. .... 90.90 220. . . . 123.80 90. .... 95.60 230. . . . 124.60 100. . . . . 100.00 240. . . . 125.35 110. .... 104.00 250. . . . 126.50 For the actual work of figuring lots a table showing the variations for each foot of depth to that of 700 feet is used. LOTS AT OR NEAR CORNERS. The process of computing the values of lots at or near corners from the ascertained values of units of contributing streets, is, by reason of the many figures employed, rather complicated to describe. The enhancement of value at corners is universally recognized. The enhancement is commonly called “corner influence.” Corner influence extends either way from the corner itself, growing gradually less as the distance from the corner increases, until it disappears. This point of disappearance is a greater or less distance from the corner and always in proportion to the effect in combination of the values of the units of the two contributing streets forming the corner. For practical purposes an imaginary corner lot 100 feet square is erected at the corner to be computed, and this imag¬ inary corner lot is divided into 100 squares, 10 s feet square 6 THE SOMERS UNIT SYSTEM each, and each numbered in regular order as shown in this diagram : O O UL- h- zz o oc DC U-J CL. o o ta I— UJ UJ cc I— CO 10 10 30 40 50 60 70 80 qo 100 q iq 2q 3q 4q sq 68 7q sq qq 8 18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88 88 7 17 87 37 47 57 67 77 87 87 6 16 £6 36 46 56 66 76 86 86 5 15 £5 35 45 55 65 75 85 85 4 14 24 34 44 54 64 74 84 R4 3 13 23 33 43 53 63 73 83 83 2 12 22 32 42 52 62 72 82 82 1 II 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 qi STREET UNIT 5200 PER FRONT FOOT (Diagram No. 3.) Mr. Somers has devised a method of arriving at the value of each of these squares under all the possible variations of relation between the values of the two streets forming the corner. To illustrate, with the values given in Diagram No. 3 where the unit values are $200 and $100: Square No. 1 is worth . $586 “ “ 11 “ “ 564 “ “ 21 “ “ 552 “ “ 2 “ “ 474 “ “ 3 “ “ 425 “ “ 4 “ “ 386 and so on for each of the squares; the values shade away from No. 1 in every direction and always in proportion to the effect of one side value on the other. By diagramming any actual lot upon this imaginary corner lot and adding up the values of all the squares and parts of squares inside the actual lot lines the value of the actual lot is ascertained. If there is a lot 30 feet wide at the corner fronting* on the best street and OF REALTY VALUATION i running back 70 feet, we find included in this lot are squares from 1 to 7 inclusive, .11 to 17 inclusive and from 21 to 27 inclusive; the combined value of these 21 squares is the value of the lot, and is that part of the total corner influence pro¬ duced by the intersection of a $100 street and a $200 street that belongs to the owner of a lot 3(f x 70 feet at the corner. The remainder of the influence, whatever it may be, is thus left to be apportioned to other owners whose properties are somwhat enhanced because they are near the corner. Where a lot is irregular in shape, its actual lines are dia¬ grammed and the result ascertained in the same way as before described. For instance: O O o or li¬ ar 1LJ o_ o o m tu LU or l— CO 10 20 — 30 40 50 60 70 80 qo 100! * — q iq 2q 3°i 4q 59 69 7q 89 99! J 8 !8 28 38 48 58 68 — — 78 88 qsi ' 7 17 27 37 47 — 57 67 77 87 q7i 1 26 36 46 56 66 76 86 “ ■ ■ 'i 96: 1 5 15 25 35 45" — 65 95] 1 4 14 24 34 44 54 64 7 4 84 44! ) 3 13 23 33 43 53 63 7 3 83 43! 2 12 22 32 42 52 62 7 2 82 92l 1 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 7 1 81 qi i _L STREET UNIT $200 PER FRONT FOOT (Diagram No. 4.) To the total value of all the whole squares within the actual lot lines must be added, in this case; the values of the parts of squares Nos. 6, 16, 26, 35, 36, 45, 55, 65, 71, 72, 73, 74 and 75. 8 THE SOMERS UNIT SYSTEM ADDING PERCENTAGES FOR CORNER VALUES INACCURATE. The old method of adding a given percentage to the corner lot is very faulty, and results in valuations that do not fit the facts. There is no known percentage that, when added, will produce the proper valuation at any given corner; and, as each corner differs in some way from every other corner, there is absolutely no given percentage that will fit the conditions at all corners. For example : STREET UNIT SI00 PER FRONT FT. CORNER LOT INSIDE LOT 100X100 100X100 (Diagram No. 5.) An inside lot 100 feet square on a street with a unit value of $100, is worth $10,000. If this is made to come at a cross street with a unit value of $20, $40, $60, $80, or $100, as the case may be, the values will be as follows: Value per foot Value of Value of Value of Percentage main cross corner inside of street. street. lot. increase. $100 per foot. $20 $11,185 $10,000 12% 100 “ “ 40 11,780 10,000 18% 100 “ “ 60 12,560 10,000 25% 100 “ “ 80 13,693 10,000 37% 100 “ “ 100 15,100 10,000 51% An inside lot 50 x 100, fronting 50 feet on a street with a unit value of $100 per front foot, is worth $5,000. A corner OF REALTY VALUATION 9 lot 'formed by a street of the same value and by side streets with a unit value of $20, $40, $60, $80 or $100 per front foot, respectively, will be valued as follows: STREET UhlT SI00 PER FRONT FT. 1 or o CORNER INSIDE + LOT LOT ZI ID 50X100 50X100 f— UJ LLJ or I * ui (Diagram No. 6.) * Value per foot Value of Value of Value of Percentage , main cross corner inside of street. street. lot. increase. $100 per foot . $20 $6,071 $5,000 21% 100 “ “ 40 6,589 5^000 31% 100 “ “ 60 7,278 5,000 45% 100 “ “ 80 8,268 5,000 65% 100 “ . 100 9,500 5,000 90% An inside lot 50 x 100 feet fronting 100 feet on a street with a unit value of $100 is worth 72% % of the unit or $7,250. Change this to a corner lot where the cross street has a unit value of $20, $40, $60, $80, or $100 and the values are as follows (see Diagram No. 7, Page 10) : Value per foot Value of Value of Value of Percentage main cross corner inside of street. street. lot. increase. $100 per foot .$20 $7,805 $7,250 7% 100 “ “ 40 8,062 7,250 11% 100 “ “ 60 8,402 7,250 16% 100 “ “ 80 8,889 7,250 22% 100 “ “ .100 8,500 7,250 31% The variations in resulting percentages as shown by these few examples illustrate the futility of the percentage plan of valuing corner lots. 10 THE SOMERS UNIT SYSTEM STREET LIMIT $100 PER FROMT F CORMERLOT I MSI DE LOT 100X50 100X50 (Diagram No. 7.) EFFECT OF ALLEYS. The effect of alleys upon abutting properties is to enhance their value. Under the Somers System the land of an alley is first valued as if for valuation as a city lot. The total land value of the alley is divided by the number of feet of abutting lots upon every part of the alley. This resulting “alley unit” is added to the normal land value of every foot abutting upon the alley. THE VARIOUS TABLES OF THE SOMERS SYSTEM. The Somers Unit System is made up of corner lot tables, —a different table for each combination of unit values—as well as zone tables for figuring irregular shaped lots, tables to com¬ pute “overlap”—that is the place where a high value from one street overlaps a lower value from another street—and plans for figuring lots at or near obtuse and acute angles. To de¬ scribe all of these would be too voluminous for the purposes of this pamphlet and such a description is, therefore, omitted. BUILDINGS VALUED ON SQUARE FOOT BASIS. In appraising buildings blank cards are used, which, when properly filled in, are so comprehensive as to cover com¬ plete descriptions and dimensions of all structures. Build¬ ing experts describe and measure all of the buildings, and com¬ pute the present cost of new reproduction on the square-foot- of-floor-space area basis, the cost factors being the judgment of the assessor. From the reproductive cost of each building a depreciation is deducted, which depreciation is based upon the judgment of the assessor as to the general average obso¬ lescence, from the new cost, considering wear and tear and the general condition of each structure. i CE O + I- UJ oc in OF REALTY VALUATION 11 COLLATERAL BENEFITS OF USE OF SOMERS SYSTEM. The Somers System is of course an innovation. Old methods may continue for a time to have their advocates. There may be opposition from old-method experts who will at first find it difficult to think in unit values instead of specific lot values. However, the Somers System ought to be judged by the results of its application, rather than by criticism from those who do not understand the system. We believe that if any city should be valued by the Somers System methods the following, among other impor¬ tant results, would be accomplished: First—The property-owners would, by their study of comparative values, be awakened to a better knowledge of their city and the possibilities of future development and increased use of their property. The peculiar advantages of each section for special uses would lead to comprehensive development along suitable lines and the replacement of old buildings by modern structures, thus enabling the community to use its property to better and more profitable advantage. Second—If the true value of all city property should be ascertained, and the taxes levied on such values, the financial requirements of the city could be easily met; and the re-distri¬ bution of the tax burden could be made with perfect fairness and justice to all property owners. The substitution of a scientific system of valuation for an unscientific custom of guessing would increase the confidence of the public in munici¬ pal administration, and make increases in the tax rate unnecessary. Third—The installation of the Somers System throughout any city would tend to the standardization of real estate values; and would render the making of loans more easy. At the same time, it would increase the confidence of the in¬ vesting public in real estate as an investment, and would create a more general interest in and knowledge of real estate values and opportunities. Fourth—A participation in the valuation of city realty on the part of the official assessors would educate those public officials to an extent that would enable them to perform their duties more efficiently. The changes in local conditions would be more accurately kept track of by the assessors, and such changes could be reflected upon all the property affected. Sample Somers System Unit Value Map, showing tentatw J I ARCH I 1 1 L 1 1 1 £11 1800 2000 2.S00 2.700 26 f« LO cuthbert.8 , 1 UNIP JO >0 Q FILBERT. ^ o o o z ■ ! 1 5| ro 4250 i 1000 1500 1 j C.500 5500 iBRbAD I ? |5T 'pTAfflON *750 5000 5500 1600ft □ □i LiJ _I o GOO 050 d RAN STEAD D PUBLIC BUILDINGS PENN SQUARE in c I I5< I 25 8000 3000 3ooo CHESTNUT FI uo CO 7000 9000 8000 10000 12.500 13500 13500 14500 £' LO SANS0M ui o o CD BROAD o o 1500 2.000 3000 □ 1* MORAVIAN 1 lo co o o □ 1 1 L. "1 r~ i 3800 4-300 4-5 00 5000 i m—i 16000 14500 i 5 0 < 17500 l 6 0 1 QO 1 i | 1 [PPL CL 220 Z o I lo 3500 25C ZD o U) CO P' N G 000 43 0 45 0 A unit is a front foot 100 feet deep unaffected by corner, a feet the value per front foot may be found by use of the Somen are worth the corresponding percentages of the unit values:— Feet deep 10 . 20 . 30. 40. Percentage of Unit Value 25 41 54 64 Feet deep 50. 60. 70. 80. Percentage o£ Unit Value 72 70 86 91 Feet deep ~ 90. 100 . 110 . 120 . Example:—If a lot in a street having a unit value of $1,000 or $1,210 a front foot. This figure does not include any value d init values to be discussed by the public (Philadelphia) J I I 5 0 0 MS 00 LUDLOW r 1 i I 000 J L 2000 r f CUTHBERT2 §| L ♦ FILBERT 2 ?L 1500 1 Is 2750 l 0500 I 1 2.50 J c LUDLOW io ^ 1 > '■ — CHESTNUT 4500 £*500 c c I, f- o oi 700 o o . |M0f?AVIAN| u> $ | Moravian 4 WALNUT *1 -L II . 1 35 00 37 5 0 3250 2500 l 3 00 c c 1 f m r ' or pther influence. For lots of greater or less depth than 100 ipth curve, which shows that frontages of the following depths ’ercentage of Uni* Value . 95 . 100 . 104 . 107 Percentage of Feet deep Unit Value Feet deep Percentage of Unit Value 130 140 150 160 110 170 . . 119 113 180 . . 120 115 190 . . 121 117 200 . 1£2 ^90 feet deep the front foot value will be 121 per cent, of $1,000 to a frontage on an alley or any other enhancing influence. 14 THE SOMERS UNIT SYSTEM Installation Methods of Somers Unit System Any city, county or state may secure the services neces¬ sary for the installation of the Somers System for assessment purposes, at reasonable cost. The plans outlined below have been adopted in different cities. The Manufacturers’ Appraisal Company is prepared to modify the plan under which services may be furnished to meet the special requirements of any community. Plan No. 1.—We can furnish expert Somers System ac¬ countants and building experts at a reasonable per diem, who can explain the operation of the Somers System and direct the assessors’ clerks and employes in the detail work necessary to lot and building computations. Or we can name a lump amount for our services in a given city upon investigation and stipulation as to the nature and amount of the services to be required. Plan No. 2.—We are prepared to name a stated price per lot or per block for applying the Somers System to all or part of a city. Thus it is possible to apply the system to the most important business section of a city, or to any section desired. The city can furnish the clerical assistance or we can furnish the clerks necessary, as may be most feasible. Plan No. 3.—For public investigations of land values, or for condemnation or other legal proceedings, we are prepared to furnish our own reM estate valuation experts, as well as Somers System experts. We are prepared to give court evi¬ dence as to the comparative values of different parcels of realty, based upon the Somers computation tables. Note.—Where we assist assessors it should be under¬ stood that in no event do our representatives participate in the fixing of unit values. That is properly a prerogative of the assessor. Address inquiries to MANUFACTURERS’ APPRAISAL COMPANY, Caxton Building, Cleveland, Ohio. Success of The Somers System The Somers Unit System of Realty Valuation is now- being used in its seventh city. It was used in Cleveland and Columbus, Ohio, for the assessments of 1910; in Philadelphia in 1910 for an investigation of assessments by councils; in Springfield, East St. Louis and Joliet, Ill., for the assessments of 1911; and at the time of issuing this pamphlet it is in operation in Denver, Colo., for the assessment of 1911. It is the only known system, plan or method of appraising realty that has been standardized and used in more than one city or taxing division. What is said of the Somers System after the assessment has been made by assessors and others, is important as expressing opinion of success or failure. We invite personal investigation of any sort in any city that has used the Somers System. The following extracts from letters, interviews and newspaper comment, show the favor that the use of this sys¬ tem meets and the interest of those who have taken occasion to investigate: IN CLEVELAND, OHIO. Mr. John A. Zangerle, Secretary of the Cleveland Quad¬ rennial Board of Assessors, who used the Somers System for the assessment of 1911, wrote the following opinion under date of July 8, 1911, a year after the completion of the work: “The lapse of one year since the original Cleveland assess¬ ment has proved the worth of the Somers System. Uniformit) r and regularity in assessment work will always.command pub¬ lic approval and enlist private support. Errors are reduced to a minimum; whim and caprice eliminated. Taxing au¬ thorities become honored and not debased; their work is emulated—not derided. “A scientific appraisal prevents the debauchery of public servants and once adopted in any city its permanent use will be assured.” Mr. Frederic C. Howe, the publicist, who was a member of the Cleveland Quadrennial Board of Assessors, in a public THE SOMERS UNIT SYSTEM 16 address after the completion of the work, made the following observations: “I think that the word ‘scientific’ can now be applied to assessments of real property for purposes of local taxation, for science, as I understand it, is a law of causation. Given certain premises, certain results must follow. The system employed in Cleveland, the Somers System, is a law of causa¬ tion to results.” “The effect of that is two-fold. It has a moral effect upon the official, because he works all the time in the open; and in addition the searchlight of publicity is on all his acts after his work is completed, for it all goes to the community for exam¬ ination. It puts the citizens in the best possible position to complain if they find they have been overvalued.” “It was surprising how readily the whole community learned to think of unit values.” “The unit system practically prevents fraud or favoritism in making values. No member of the Board, and no official, made values. He knew nothing about lot lines: these lines were not printed, they were not before him. He was looking at a hypothetical plot, not a lot of land. If he attempted to favor any particular one by favoring a whole district it threw it all out of joint and made it difficult, almost impossible, to accord favors to an individual without according them to a very large district ; and in view of the large number of eyes that were looking at every district it was practically impos¬ sible to grant any favors, such as have been so numerous in assessing real property in the past.” Mr. F. A. Sarstedt, President of the Cleveland Board of Review, the reviewing board for the Cleveland assessment of 1910, under date of July 10, 1911, writes the following: “I was connected with the taxing machinery in this county in 1900, when the last appraisement was made and no system was used. I have also worked on the equalization of the last appraisement made under the Somers System, and am therefore familiar with the comparative results. “We have in the city of Cleveland approximately 145,000 parcels of property, and nearly 100,000 buildings, which, according to our laws, had to be appraised and turned over in seven months’ time. Five men were elected to do this work, and they used more than 500 employes to accomplish the results, many of whom never had any previous experience „on OF REALTY VALUATION 17 this kind of work, and the entire’ organization was new. While Mr. Somers took general charge of the work, he com¬ plained about the inefficiency of a large number of his asso¬ ciates. Under the circumstances, it is only natural that hundreds of errors of all kinds would creep into the work and cause dissatisfaction and complaints. “We have had in the neighborhood of 12,000 complaints, and it is our judgment that 60 per cent of them were due to clerical errors. “After reviewing this work for the past eight months, I am firmly convinced that the Somers plan, if carefully worked out by competent men, will eliminate 90 per cent of the troubles of the assessing authorities. “There, is no question but what it prevents partiality being shown between neighbors, because, after units are estab¬ lished, all property must be figured on the same basis in a given territory. No reduction nor addition can be made with¬ out applying to all property within the block, and if the large majority in a certain block is satisfied, it enables the assessing authorities to stand firmly on the uniform value of the whole block, notwithstanding the fact that the minority owners complain bitterly. “I do not think that this city will ever go back to the old methods after having experienced the use of the Somers System.” City Solicitor Newton D. Baker, of Cleveland, in response to an inquiry concerning the Somers System, answered as follows: “It is the most practical and just system of real estate assessment that I have ever seen.” Mr. R. M. Hurd, President of the Lawyers’ Mortgage Company of New York, a student who has investigated land valuation methods in many parts of the country, and an author of authority on this subject, addressed the following letter to Mr. John A. Zangerle, Secretary of the Cleveland Quadren¬ nial Board of Assessors, who used the Somers System in the 1910 assessment, under date of March 7, 1911: “I duly received the Quadrennial Report of the Board of Assessors of the City of Cleveland and thank you very much for sending it to me. I read this over last night and I cer¬ tainly think it a model report and one that the Board should 18 THE SOMERS UNIT SYSTEM be proud of. I do not believe that any city has done this work as scientifically and effectively as Cleveland.” IN SPRINGFIELD, ILL. Assessor Burke Vancil, of Springfield, Ill., under date of July 6, 1911, after the completion of the assessment of 1911, wrote the following: “Now that we are through with the work of making our quadrennial assessment of real estate a brief retrospect may be of interest to you. You probably remember that I was not inclined to adopt the Somers System here until I had made a careful investigation of results in other cities and demon¬ strations of the system were had on several business and resi¬ dence blocks of our city. We have used the system through¬ out the entire city and I am convinced that this or a similar system is the only successful way to determine the value of city lots and buildings for taxation purposes. “Now that I have used the system and seen its practical application I unhesitatingly say that I have no regrets for having decided to adopt it for Springfield. With it we have secured a remarkable degree of accuracy, almost absolute uniformity and the fullest publicity. “I am impressed with the simplicity of the system and observe that after all it is just ordinary common sense sys¬ tematically applied. “It has been well received here and with the exception of a few complaints from those who have heretofore escaped their just share of taxes, it has met with the approval of the entire community. If you see fit to refer to me I shall be glad to speak from the standpoint of one who has used the system.” IN EAST ST. LOUIS, ILL. Assessor L. S. McWilliams, of East St. Louis, Ill., wrote the following letter at the conclusion of his work for 1911: “As we have just completed the Quadrennial Assessment of all real property and as this was the first city in: the state of Illinois to adopt the Somers System, it affords me great pleasure to state that with very few exceptions this assess¬ ment is entirely satisfactory. Almost universally the tax¬ payers of this community feel that this plan has afforded our city the most just and equitable assessment that was ever attempted in this municipality and I am eager to assure you that I know of no honest objection to this plan of work, and, OF REALTY VALUATION 19 I further assure you that the high standard of efficiency made possible through the use of the Somers System will be a perr manent benefit in the way of all future public service in the management of this city.” IN JOLIET, ILLINOIS. Mr. W. O. Hodgdon, Industrial Agent for the City of Joliet, Iffi, where the Somers System was used in the assess¬ ment of 1911, writes as follows under date of July 11, 1911: “The Somers Unit System was used in Joliet this spring for the purpose of ascertaining taxable values. The results have been received with marked favor by Assessor Elmer S. Grundy, and by others who have a practical knowledge of the situation. Numerous public meetings were held to study the workings of the system. Following this the people au¬ thorized an appropriation to install the Somers System. The result of its application to the valuation of land and buildings for taxation purposes has been the correction of many in¬ equalities due in the past to the lack of a systematic assess¬ ment rule.” IN PHILADELPHIA, PA. In an official report to councils under date of November 30, 1910, Messrs. John Adams, Win. F. Deakyne and James Johnston, experts chosen for their very wide knowledge of Philadelphia realty values, wrote the following: “That in: compliance with your instructions and in fur¬ therance of the purposes of our appointment, we have continuously, from that time, been actively and diligently employed, separately and in co-operation with the Manufac¬ turers’ Appraisal Company, in placing values upon the land and the improvements thereon erected, embracing individual properties in the Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Wards. After careful consideration and independent investigation by ourselves of land and building values, we are of the opinion that the valuations made by the representatives i of the Manufacturers’ Appraisal Company and ourselves upon the properties passed upon (land and improvements thereon erected), are as nearly correct at the time of our fixing such valuations as it is humanly possible to have them. A “We further desire to express our approval of the com¬ pany’s method of measuring buildings and carefully fixing a present market value thereon, separate and apart from the land value. Its calculations of land values by the Somers System is a decided improvement upon, and much superior to the method of assessment at present in use. By the com- 20 THE SOMERS UNIT SYSTEM pany’s method every foot of ground of each and every lot is accounted for and given its accurate value. Such valuations of land and improvements produce greater uniformity and equality.” Mayor Reyburn, of Philadelphia, in an interview in the Philadelphia Public Ledger, July 8, 1911, in an extended inter¬ view on the Somers System, which the councils of tjiat city had attempted to use in an assessment investigation the year before, makes these observations: “Irrespective of the intrinsic merits of the Somers System for assessing realty as a proprietary plan, it has basic princi¬ ples for its foundation that we could well carry out. “The demonstration made by the Somers people in making assessments of realty in central wards and German¬ town, while possibly not conclusive, was nevertheless illum¬ inating to demonstrate its worth. And that demonstration was worth the price charged by the company for its work.” Note.—The Philadelphia work of this company was done for a Joint Committee of Councils authorized to investigate the assessments in that city. The work was over half com¬ pleted when it was stopped by the courts on the ground that councils had not the legal power to make such an investiga¬ tion. This company made a partial report of findings, and it is to this partial report and general talk in Philadelphia to which Mayor Reyburn evidently refers. At the time the con¬ tract was made by the Joint Committee with the Manufac¬ turers’ Appraisal Company, Mayor Reyburn, while consenting to it, expressed some doubts as to the advisability of the con¬ templated step; therefore his endorsement of the effect of the partial work in Philadelphia is specially significant. Edward W. Patton, Chairman of the Joint Committee of Philadelphia Councils to investigate the taxable value of real estate, writes under date of July 10, 1911: “I consider the Somers System of Realty Valuation the most excellent method yet devised for arriving at the actual market value of land and buildings, and it reaches more ac¬ curate results than any other method with which I am acquainted. To the system I wish to give my most hearty recommendation. “This system received but a partial trial in Philadelphia when it was held that the Manufacturers’ Appraisal Company had been employed by the wrong governmental body, and for 21 OF REALTY VALUATION that reason the work in Philadelphia was not completed. The opinion of the court in this case commended the system, and rested its decision entirely upon the question of division of authority between Councils and the Board of Revision of Taxes. “While the above action of the court halted the complete application of the Somers System, yet so much of the work as was completed showed marked improvement over the then existing* assessments, and subsequently the assessors profited by the work of the Somers System, radically modifying many of their previous valuations.” Mr. Peter E. Costello, member of the Joint Councils Com¬ mittee of Philadelphia, under date of July 10, 1911, writes as follows: “The Somers System is, in my opinion, the most scien¬ tific and accurate method of valuing land and buildings ever devised. This fact is clearly proved by the valuations in your report to the Councils Special Committee. “The scientific and systematic methods used in the ap¬ praisal of real estate by the Somers System are as far in advance of the present guessing methods of nearly all assess¬ ing departments as our present methods of transportation are an improvement over those of a century ago. “If the Somers System was universally adopted, it would end all unfairness in taxation, would result in the wealthy owner of central properties bearing his burden of taxation and would abolish the over-taxation of the small home owner.” Mr. William F. Deakyne, one of the experts employed by the Joint Councils Committee for the investigation of Phila¬ delphia assessments in 1910, and a real estate broker of forty years, writes the following under date of July 10, 1911: “My first impression of the Somers Unit System of Realty Valuation was that it was an impractical scheme which would never work in Philadelphia. When I formed this opinion, I knew very little about the system, and had never had its merits demonstrated. “During the many years I have been engaged in the real estate business as an active broker, I have bought and sold for my own account and for clients many million dollars worth of real estate. I always performed this work in the way usual with real estate brokers; that is, by considering the selling prices, rentals, and such other information as could be ob- 22 THE SOMERS UNIT SYSTEM tained of properties near the one in question, and comparing sizes of lots, etc., and also taking into consideration what could be done with the property in question if improved. “It never occurred to me that any uniform and standard rule could be adopted for making such comparisons. I realize from experience the difficulty of comparing lots of different sizes and different shapes, and buildings of different type of construction. If I had been asked if such a rule were possible I believe that my answer would have been in the negative. “It is, therefore, not strange that I at first regarded the Somers System as a visionary scheme which would not stand a test, but, during the several months when I acted as real estate expert for a Special Joint Committee of the City Councils of Philadelphia, I kept close watch upon the work done in the application of the Somers System by the Manu¬ facturers’- Appraisal Company, and came to the conclusion that the scheme which I had at first considered visionary was a most practical method of uniformly assessing property. “There is no question in my mind that the work done by the Manufacturers’ Appraisal Company in Philadelphia is of inestimable value to the city, as it has taught many thousands of citizens that equitable taxation can only be obtained through equitable assessments.” Mr. Haines D. Albright, Secretary of the Tax Reform Association of Pennsylvania, under date of July 11,1911, writes the following: “The partial investigation of the taxable value of Phila¬ delphia real estate made by your company disclosed many instances of gross inequality, and thus compelled a substantial advance towards a just and equal distribution of the tax burden. “We studied and observed in detail the methods employed by you during your work in Philadelphia, and are convinced that they include every device and every safeguard against unfairness known to the science of realty valuation. “Your method of discovering the true value of various streets, by inviting and encouraging all persons who are ac¬ quainted with the neighborhood to participate in public dis¬ cussions, and to assist in appraising the fairness of known sale prices, worked admirably. The public discussions were par¬ ticipated in by the very people who knew the facts at first hand, and they unquestionably resulted in bringing to the OF REALTY VALUATION 23 knowledge and notice of our tax assessment officials a great mass of, to them, very instructive information. “I trust that Philadelphia will hereafter find a way to have the whole of our assessments made in accordance with the admirable system which your company employs.” IN COLUMBUS, OHIO. The Quadrennial Board of Assessors of Columbus, Ohio, > installed and . used the Somers System for the assessment of 1910. The contract for this work with this company, among other things, provided that there should be no payment for services until the work had been completed. When the work was nearly finished, so well satisfied were the members of this Board with the Somers System, that they made a supple¬ mentary contract for the assessment for territory that had been annexed to the city after the first contract was entered into. At the conclusion of all the work under both contracts the Board unanimously recommended the payment of the bill for the use of the Somers System and for the services of the experts of the Manufacturers’ Appraisal Company. This action necessarily carried with it commendation for the work performed under these two contracts. The auditor of Franklin county, in which is located the City of Columbus, after this action, and, as declared by him in private conversations, for political reasons, withheld pay¬ ment, thus compelling this company to sue for its account. The hearing resulted in a judgment for the full amount with interest and costs, in favor of the Manufacturers’ Appraisal Company; to the effect that the auditor had no legal right to withhold the money due on the contract. At the hearing of this suit members Hertenstein and Clark of the Board of Assessors were called upon to testify. Their sworn evidence was to the effect that the use of the Somers c System had resulted in the first equitable assessment of land and buildings that had ever been made in Columbus; they gave many strong reasons for satisfaction with the work of this company in installing and using the Somers System in the assessment work. The contention of the auditor that the use of the Somers System precluded the valuation of the property ‘“upon view,” as required by law, the assessors de¬ clared to be without justification in fact. Not only was all property viewed by the assessors, but they declared that, the 24 THE SOMERS UNIT SYSTEM Somers System afforded a most effective basis for comparison of streets and lots, impossible without the use of a scientific system. The schedule of building valuations and depreciations used by the Board of Assessors is now in use by Columbus insur¬ ance adjusters for the settlement of fire losses. INVESTIGATION IN BOSTON. In an editorial in its issue of June 3, 1911, the Boston Common has the following: “A number of schemes have been devised for systematiz¬ ing the computation of tax assessments and the claims for them vary widely. All that the promoters of the Somers plan assert for it, is that if its unit starting points are selected fairly and its tables reckoned with clerical accuracy, it will give a scientifically proportioned distribution of the tax bur¬ den, needing readjustment' in only a few instances where exceptional factors operate. They make, indeed, one further claim—that the public discussion incidental to the selection of the unit starting points, if not inseparable from it, tends to throw the entire work of assessing into the open, thus bring¬ ing into play the powerful corrective of publicity. “We hold no brief for the Somers plan but deem it worthy of explanation and examination. The need of improved assessing is notorious in Boston. Not only is the disproportion great as between assessments of business prop¬ erties of approximately equal commercial value, showing either carelessness or 'puli’ or both; but the worse evil exists of a heavier load upon the small house owner than upon the trader or speculator.” * “EXTRAORDINARILY GOOD.” The Ohio State Tax Commission in its final action July 11, 1911, on the assessment of Columbus, Ohio, made no changes in the figures returned. The Columbus State Journal says: “Columbus is one of the few cities in the state which has not had the total of its real estate duplicate changed when it reached the Tax Commission. The Commissioners say the labors of the Columbus Board of Review and Quadrennial Appraisers was extraordinarily good.” Columbus was assessed by the Somers System methods. STATE'ST. ADAMS ST UN IT ♦ 5.000 14* .4 © o © $ 1.702,355 N $ 280. 189 © # 50!, 9 56 # o ® 8 |66.804 *5 © 4 3