Please note: this text may be incomplete. For more information about this OCR, view
About OCR text.
REAL ESTATE
EitlP
AND
NEW YORK, MAY 6,1916
RESULTS OF 1916 LEGISLATION LEAVE CITY IN
WORSE PLIGHT THAN LAST YEAR
Bills Detrimental to Interests of Municipality En¬
acted, While Favorable Measures Go By the Board
(Special to The Reeord a Guide.)
.\ll.iany. May 5.—.\fter the debris left
by the Legislature has been cleared
away, not much of the original program
of the Tax Reduction Committee has
been found to remain. Most of the
bills favored by the administration have
gone by the board and a great deal of
legislation detrimental to the interests
of the municipality has been enacted
into laws.
.\t the present time the bills passed by
the Legislature are in the hands of the
Governor, who will have until May 20 to
sign any measure he wishes to place on
llie statute books. All bills not signed
by him prior to this date fail of enact¬
ment.
Asked Reduction.
The Tax Reduction Committee of the
City of New York yesterday presented
to the Governor a petition asking for the
elimination of millions of dollars appro¬
priated by the Legislature. The argu¬
ments submitted by the committee are
based on a scientific study of the budget
needs, and each item which is unneces¬
sary for an economical administration of
the State's affairs was pointed out to the
Governor. The chief objection to a
budget of $60,000,000 was containeci in
the statement that the appropriations
will exceed the estimated revenues of the
State by nearly $10,000,000, and a direct
tax will have to be imposed thus plac¬
ing another burden on the real estate
owners of New York Citv, who will have
to contribute nearly $7,000,000 of this
deficit.
One of the greatest disappointments
to the people of the metropolis must be
the realization of the truth that the
Legislature at no time had any desire to
extend Home Rule to the City of
New York. Not even a semblance of
autonomy has been granted by this
year's le,gislation, and a pseudo-measure
which was introduced by Senator Elon
R. Brown for the purpose of removing
distrust and silencing the outcry of New
York City's population against the heavy
burdens imposed upon the taxpayers by
rural le,gislators. was defeated in the
closing hours of the session. This Home
Rule measure, insufficient as it was,
would have proved the entering wedge
of New York City for a greater share
of local autonomy. It was heralded as
the greatest achievement of the Joint
Legislative Committee appointed to in-
ciuire into the finances of the City of
New York; and Senator Brown, who
was at the head of this investigation,
prided himself on having provided the
proper solution of the problem.
Lost in the Shuffle.
The bill was adopted by the Senate and
was supposed to have passed the .Assem¬
bly. It was nearly a week after ad¬
journment that the discovery was made
of the failure of the lower house to take
a vote on Brown's Home Rule amend¬
ment. The measure had heen strangled
in the rooms of the Committee on Rules.
a tribunal composed in its majority of
un-State law-makers who disdain to
cater to the wishes of New York City,
no matter how meritorious the demand¬
ed legislation may be.
-•^nd in order not to leave any room
for doubt as to its temper, the Legisla¬
ture gave to the Home Rule principle the
most effective blow within its power by
overriding the veto of Mayor Mitchel
on the bill permitting municipalities in
Westchester County to tap the mains of
the New York City water supply. The
Mayor contended that the metropolis
had spent untold millions of dollars in
providing its citizens with sufficient
water and none of the supply could be
spared. It has been many tJecades since
a Legislature dared to override a Mayor's
veto, but the opportunity to emphasize
the utter impotence of a great city was
not to be permitted to go unnoticed.
Both houses jumped at the chance to
apply the boot to Home Rule and passed
again the bill rejected by the Mayor.
What has been left of Senator Brown's
promises can be recited in short order.
In his report on the financial situation
of the City of New York the Senator
had stated that "it is hoped the results
of the investigation will tend to remove
misapprehension, to discover a standard
of just distribution of tax burdens_ and
to strengthen a sense of mutual inde¬
pendence between State and city."
Excise Licenses.
The largest single item of additional
revenue belonging to the city but kept
by the State was the surtax on excise
licenses. Senator Brown had stated that
the city might expect a reduction in its
tax levy as compared with the levy of
1916 from the added income of its share
of this additional excise tax, amounting
to the sum of $1,000,000. The surtax
was passed by the Legislature and not
a penny of its revenue will go to the
city this year, the entire amount having
been appropriated for the State Treas¬
ury.
Ill its place a bill was passed prohib¬
iting further construction by the .State
of roads in cities, and also prohibiting
the maintenance of county roads by the
State. This bill will make a saving
of $170,000 to the taxpayers, while the
other bill, introduced by Senator Wag¬
ner, would have done away with the
pork barrel, known as State aid and
kept many millions in the treasury.
Normal School Question.
A promise was made by Senator
Brown that the normal schools of New
York City should receive financial sup¬
port in the same manner as in other
communities, and he figured a reduc¬
tion of $500,000 in the citv's tax levy
by reason of this relief. The bill sup¬
posed to grant this relief was never
passed, and thereby another promise
went by the board.
.A saving of $2,500,000 in bringing
county government under city control
was contained in Brown's program. The
bill for this econoniv was likewise kill¬
ed. A bill giving the local authorities
power to consolidate departments, there¬
bv reducing the city's pay-roll, was also
killed. .\ number of other bills, one
of them to create a Central Purchasing
Bureau in New York Citv, another to
place control of all expenditures by tho
Water Supply Board in the hands of
the Board of Estimate, and still anoth¬
er giving the Mayor authority to ap¬
prove or veto bills affecting county af¬
fairs, never had any chance of enact¬
ment.
Let us now examine the other side,
the bills enacted into laws. The first
two measures passed were as follows:
1. Changing the time for collec¬
tion of taxes from May and No¬
vember to January and July.
2. Enacting the "Pay-as-you-go-
Policy" into law.
Both of these bills were disapproved
by the Real Estate Board and many
other civic bodies. Nevertheless they
were forced through both houses and
adopted.
Other Opposed BUls.
Two other bills, political in their na¬
ture and intended for partisan purposes
only, and likewise opposed by the Real
Estate Board, were passed. They are:
1. Changing the Department of
Bridges to a Department of Plant
and Structures.
2. Empowering the Commissioner
of Water Supply, Gas and Elec¬
tricity to make rules and regula¬
tions for consumers.
Other important measures passed are:
1. Charging the State with the
regulative expenses of the Public
Service Commission of the first
district. This law will not go into
effect until next year and the sav¬
ing to the citv will not amount to
more than $150,000, as 70 per cent,
of this expenditure has to be con¬
tributed under all circumstances by
the city and the State Treasury.
2. Dividing the tax with the
various counties. Senator Elon R.
Brown is of the opinion that the
city will derive a revenue of $400.-
000 annually from this source. His
colleague. Senator Bennett, is of
the opinion that the city will be
a loser on this deal to the extent
of $300,000.
3. Sheriff's fees of New York
County to be turned into the City
Treasury. This will go into eflfect
January 1, 1918, and is one of the
few noteworthy measures enacted
for the benefit of the taxpayers,
without string or boomerang.
4. Permitting a referendum on the
question whether the city or the
Legislature shall have power to fi.x
salaries.
The city's share of the surtax for
excise licenses in the amount of $1,000.-
000 has been withheld for the coming
year. There was an express promise
by Senator Brown to give this revenue
to the citv for the reduction of the tax
levy of 1916.
No Other Relief Passed.
No other legislation for the financial
relief of the city has been passed. .\
few bills affecting real estate ownership,
which have merit, are now in the hands
of the Governor, and will become law.
One of these bills has to do with the
centralization of buildin,g insoection: an¬
other modifies the present Torrens law
and regulates the registration of titles
of real pronerty. .All in all. the harvest
is nothing to boast of. The Legislature
has been" true to its traditions, not to
give the City of New York anything
which would deprive the rural lawmak¬
ers of their control over the richest
cornmunity in the country, S. L. S.