ill iSSK® IMi tmm "■Vi. / ill §§i '.I.' .,*ii MW, /vvlr:J - ' .-V ■ ?;m SU- -KS ■ S I ■“ iilii: 7-*?7: ■. ^ - 7 ... • : r;;: ' , -1 •. i;#i M ) **fe7| 77I#; '*■' ' :vi r ' ... ' * ". ' ' » - J * 1 V • ■ ' . - ;• .• ■ ::-11 * V *■ IS WIHRSire W sows rr 4UG 24 isy , ' 5?v miiiii ^ f*; 1920 Assessments Unit Value Maps - ' 7 7v ■".■•''• /'i'. ■ ■ ' 77 „v,. , . ■' 7 7,.- > !1 , 7; Cleveland, East Cleveland, Lakewood and Cleveland Heights , ' ■. ^ ii ' J&:, m / 'X-y '&r: f r' ■ ' • Illustrated and Explained by JOHN A. ZANGERLE, County Auditor SB wife I" ’ ■ 1 > ,1 1 g*77Jvt7f*f......... v - j -r-.v ::m : -pr- ** - v '7 7 v, ; ' ■ Ki7’ h ' 71 . : '••• ,, - ■- ‘ • ', , ■>,. 7 -7 ' • '• • '■ " ' ■' - " -1 ' '.i: * ' ; ; 7 7 ” . ;■ • - '..'1:7;'-I':. 7 llffill This publication is furnished gratis to the tax- payers ofCuyamga County. demand of 'State Tax Commissions, County 77777; 7l 7 I* i : • -f AUG 24 1922 A Modern Tax Office The above represents the modern method of extending, proving and entering of taxes and assessments. Under the old political system, under which many offices are still conducted, a lot of incompetent clerks appointed for their political pull are kept on the payroll for an entire year in order to be available for the heavy task during the months of September, October and November of entering, extending and proving of taxes. This year the work was all deferred pend- ing the outcome of the referendum election in November on the question of increasing the municipal and school rates. It was figured by the Auditor that it would require three shifts a day of eight hours each, in order to have the tax books available at the required time. Notwithstanding this delay the tax books were ready at the usual time for transmittal to the Treasurer. Not only is a great amount of time saved in the modern office by the temporary use of clerks and machines but they also effect a great saving of money by keeping off the payroll the extra employees during the fore part of the year when they are not needed. Cuyahoga County thus probably saves $10,000 to $15,000 at least per year. The immensity of the Auditor’s task is little known to the public. In this county we have approximately 350,000 parcels of land. These are first assessed by the Assessing Department and entered on the Auditor’s and Treasurer’s duplicates. The general tax rate of the City of Cleveland is $2.28 per $100. It is necessary that each of these assessments be multiplied by the tax rate and that it be done without a mistake of a single penny. It is necessary also to add the special assessments in each case to the aggregate general tax assessed against each parcel of land. This aggregate amount is then extended for a semi-annual one-half payment. Not only is it necessary that these amounts be proven upon the Auditor’s duplicate but also on the Treasurer’s duplicate and they must correspond with each other. The modern tax office can no longer be conducted in a slow and lazy manner by tired and overworked clerks when the office may be operated in a businesslike and progressive manner through the use of non-political, tireless machines. \35£,'\ C3%. We Favor the Adoption of System and Standards to the end 1st. That PROPERTY be assessed—not indi- viduals ; 2nd. That uniformity be secured; 3rd. That any citizen may assess any property any- where ; 4th. That graft be prevented; 5th. That the Board of Revision may correct and adjust in harmony with the assessment; 6th. That errors be more easily detected. County Auditor. Organization JOHN A. ZANGERLE, County Auditor Assessors of Land—Deputy Auditors Geo. E, Asling, R. A. Horn, Louis Zepp, John Kiloran, C. F. Rossiter. Assessors of Buildings—Deputy Auditors Morris New, John Warner, G. O. Campbell, Geo. Bollrnyer, W. A. Spilker. Assessors of Personal Property of Corporations—Deputy Auditors V. C. Donaldson, H. Cummerow, J. H. Dowell. Assessor of Personal Property of Unincorporated Business—Walter Curth. Assessor of Personal Property of Individuals and Estates—Walter Bethel. Assessor of Inheritance Taxes—Chas. R. Hayden. Special Committee of The Cleveland Real Estate Board to recommend the proper unit values for all of Euclid Ave. and the business district: H. H. Hampton, Chairman Edwin H. McIntosh Heaton Pennington, Jr. L. H. Wain Geo. B. Kennerdell Ivan A. Greenwood Walter P. Greenwood C. F. Laughlin The following members of The Cleveland Real Estate Board served on Committees to assist the department in deciding the proper unit values on all other streets and thoroughfares : H. H. Hampton, Chairman J. W. Stewart James Bingham Chas. E. Ferrell Howard Byrns J. D. Kunkel A. E. Davis Raymond T. Cragin Frederick S. Wallace James Webb Ben Parrett E. R. Porter C. W. Shimmon O. C. Saum R. F. Berwald Elmer Campbell E. H. McIntosh L. S. Connelly The following well known real estate and business men were consulted by the department in establishing proper unit values for Cleveland which were later checked up by a Real Estate mittee for errors and inequalities Geo. Amiott Thos. E. Croke W. A. Greenlund Geo. Kurcz O. C. Ringle H. A. Stahl A. A. Atwater R. E. Devney H. F. Gruss Joseph Laronge Wm. Robertson Otto Starek B. Auerbach Eli E. Doster Tohn M. Haas James Mall W. Louis Rose H. F. Stillman Jacob Babin Emmet Dowling P. J. Haley D. Todd May Alex A. Rosynick Daniel R. Taylor Carl D. Baum Frank B. Downer Carl R. Harrison Leo Mayer Rudolph & Palmer F. J. Teegarden C. F. Batig W. R. Dunbar Wm. Heil Robert R. McKenzie James Ryan H. R. Templeton Harvey Bingham R. B. Dunn Moses Helper Stanley McMichael F. B. Sanders C. F. Thomas B. F. Blaser Elmer Durr Henry Hertel R. B. Mehling M. B. Scharfeld Mark Thompson Frank Bowman Elworthy & Helwick Ben Hopkins Louis A. Moses Frederick Schauffler Jos. Tkac Eugene Brink H. M. Farnsworth H. B. Howells Chas. H. Musselman Robert Scholl L. Tupp Robert J. Bulkley Ben Feniger Chas. A. Irwin Frank Nutting Wm. C. Sell Van Aken & Strock Ed Bushnell Ray Floyd B. W. Jackson Henry G. Oppman Beldon Seymour Fred B. Wadhams A. R. Callow J. L. Free John Jaster F. E. Ostrander Carroll C. Shamp James Walker V. C. Campanelli C. O. Frick Thos. W. Keenan F. H. Palmer Frank Sheppard R. E. Ward S. A. Cook John Friedl W. H. Kennell B. C. Parrett Peter Slack John Weiser Irving W. Cole James A. Frye Thos. A. Knight Chas. E. Pegler Joseph Smart A .D. Wiese Chas. M, Collacott E. G. Gilbert John Krause Chas. T. Prestien E. W. Smith Ben Wilhelmy Homer Cozad P. Graydon J. S. Krause J. B. Quigley A. B. Smythe Clyde White Harry Crabs John E. Gear C. T. Kimmick C. H. Quinlan Fred W. Staffeld LAKEWOOD At taxpayers’ meeting held i n Garfield School on Detroit Avenue, August 20th, 1919, the following committee was selected to fix unit values in East Lakewood: Capt. C. E. Benham, Chairman A. F. Leopold Geo. A. Newman Wm. F. Maurer Geo. C. Hansen D. Todd May The taxpayers’ meeting for Central Lakewood was held in Old High School, August 21, 1919. The following committee was selected to fix unit values: Oscar Kroehle, Chairman Geo. Singleton E. G. Gilbert J. T. Crehan Fred Maerkle James Walker The taxpayers’ meeting for Western Lakewood was ; held in McKinley School, August 22, 1919. The following committee was selected to fix unit values: Geo. N. Shaver, Chairman Chas. L. Fish Thos. B. Armstrong James Gormsen Fred Maerkle Wm. A. Greenlund The committees, after holding several meetings and hearing testimony, agreed to the values herein indicated. EAST CLEVELAND The Board of Education and the City Commission selected the following honorary local committee to fix unit values in East Cleveland City: Byron Jackson, 1809 Roxford Rd,, Assessor. Kline Leet, 1721 Holyoke Rd. The following committee was appointed by the Mayor: Chas. C. Frazine, Assessor. E. W. Kneen, 3156 Oak Rd. G. E. Hartshorn, 1717 Middlehurst Rd. Warren W. Richmond, 1895 Charles Rd. Christian Robinson, 13902 Beaumont Ave. CLEVELAND HEIGHTS VILLAGE Fred C. Becker, 3809 Mayfield Rd. Dr. Robt. E. Ruedy, 2738 Noble Rd. Frank Maher, Wilton and Somerton Rds. J. F. Sperry, 14517 Scioto. C. A. Witzel, 13125 Euclid Ave. Geo. W. Staiger, 2212 Stillman Rd. B. R. Deming, 2485 Fairmount Rd. T. W. Larwood, 2637 Wellington Rd.Organization BEDFORD TOWNSHIP AND BEDFORD VILLAGE— W. R. Heck, Assessor Honorary Committee on Complaints Mayor W. H. Wycoff William Wallace D. P. Handyside BAY VILLAGE— Dr. J. L. Saddler, Assessor Henry Koch Wm. J. Blaha C. E. Osborn Harry Drake Robert Hassler Honorary Committee on Complaints BRECKSVILLE TOWNSHIP— J. E. McCreery, Assessor W. H. McCreery H. W. Snow C. H. Miller Honorary Committee on Complaints BROOKLYN HTS. VILLAGE— C. M. Hooper, Assessor T. W. Garvin H. F. Chester M. L. Ruetenik Honorary Committee on Complaints CHAGRIN FALLS TOWN- SHIP AND VILLAGE— C. W. Radcliffe, Assessor F. C. Chapman A. C. Brewster Fred Harris Honorary Committee on Complaints CUYAHOGA HTS. VILLAGE— C. L. Radway, Assessor Frank E. Hanousek Joseph Travis C. J. Kraff Honorary Committee on Complaints EUCLID VILLAGE— W. B. Page, Assessor R. L. Herrick F. Bierber J. C. Kline Honorary Committee on Complaints FAIRVIEW VILLAGE AND GOLDWOOD TOWNSHIP— S. W. Wenban, Assessor C. E. Anthony D. W. Garringer Chas. Hessert Honorary Committee on Complaints Continued GARFIELD HTS. VILLAGE— Wm. Kramer, Assessor O. D. Jackson Claude A. Myers Andrew Basel M. B. Jewett Geo. R. Green Henry Kruse Henry Webber Honorary Committee on Complaints LINNDALE VILLAGE— Mayor Geo. Linn, Assessor James Cupako Vincent Lembo C. Fred Hess Honorary Committee on Complaints MAPLE HTS. VILLAGE— Edmund J. Andres, Assessor Philip Raimer Geo. W. Caldwell R. Hadfield Mary G. Maresh Wm. Koring C. H. Holtz Honorary Committee on Complaints NEWBURGH HTS. VILL.— Wm. E. Loesch, Assessor John J. Krai John C. McDowell Julius E. Volmar Honorary Committee on Complaints PARMA TOWNSHIP AND PARMA HTS. VILLAGE— J. L. Uhinck, Assessor H. J. Schaaf Carl Haag J. D. Loder Honorary Committee on Complaints ROCKY RIVER VILLAGE— S. W. Wenban, Assessor John Hoag C. H. Dean C. A. Stein Honorary Committee on Complaints SHAKER HTS. VILLAGE— Ray A. Horn, Assessor Chas. Palmer T. T. Long Geo, Arnold Honorary Committee on Complaints VALLEY VIEW VILLAGE— B. C. Allen, Assessor C. E. Brown Arthur Heinton John Schriber Honorary Committee on Complaints WEST PARK VILLAGE— W”m. Dahm, Assessor P. J. Reitz Everett Short Chas. Hahn W. E. Feuchter Harry Steen J. J. Gies Honorary Committee on ComplaintsComplaints Complaint may be filed on or before January 20th, 1921. Such complaints must set forth such facts as will enable the Board to determine the reason- ableness of the complaint therefrom. A mere state- ment of over assessment will not be sufficient. Re- member that the Board represents the absent owner as well as the present complainant; that a reduction to one, if not meritorious, is an injustice to every other taxpayer; that one complaint allowed, opens the door to charges of a “stand-in;” that every com- plaint granted, stimulates a dozen others; and finally that a change in a particular assessment which is based on rules and system invalidates the whole when individuals are heard without considering the com- munity as a whole. Intending complainants should appreciate that all assessments were submitted to the real estate ex- perts for corrections. They were also submitted to the taxation committee of the Real Estate Board for modification, correction or approval. Much time will be saved if they will assume that THE BOARD OF REVISION KNOWS 1. (a) That a very wide street reduces values because traffic will not cross it. (b) That a very narrow street reduces values. 2. (a) That large traffic without buying capacity is not a criterion. (b) That a large traffic of credit-buying pur- chasers is not to be considered, 3. (a) Income should be the basis for assessment (where the income is small). (b) That income should not be the basis (where the income is great), such as theatres, drug stores, peanut stands, restaurants, 5 & 10c stores, etc. 4. (a) That property should be depreciated when a church is your neighbor and (b) Where your church or no church is nearby. 5. (a) That property should be depreciated where you have a police or fire-engine station next door, and (b) When you have no police or fire-engine sta- tion nearby. 6. (a) A deep lot is worth no more than a shallow lot, and (b) That a shallow lot is worthless because it is not deep. 7. (a) That property is worth less because it is restricted. (b) That property is worth less if not re- stricted. 8. (a) No banking facilities depreciates business property. (b) Bank buildings, being dark and gloomy much, of the day and night, depreciate neighboring property. PRESENT VALUES Many property owners may not have followed the market during the last two years. They may have in mind the cost prices or values of several years ago. Before criticism of any units herein is offered, we advise that inquiry be made as to recent sales. All over the United States, in country, villages and cities, land values have jumped from 50% to 200%. Indeed, this applies to all European countries as well as to every industrial and commercial nation of the world. Governmental bodies no longer can function with old budgets. Policemen, firemen, school teach- ers, clerks and judges demand corresponding in- creases of compensation. Costs of labor and ma- terial to public bodies follow the market. Roads and public buildings cost more to maintain. These re- quirements may only be met by a greater correspond- ence of assessments with present sales. That there is great and greater need for economy in public expenditures, that unnecessary public ventures should be deferred pending the national and inter- national re-adjustment of the conditions of labor, capital and finance—all this may be admitted. And yet present public expenditures are necessarily greater than before the war, even without consider- ing the added political functions which have been imposed upon political bodies. To the end that these expenditures may be equitably apportioned, it is necessary that real estate, prepondering by far in the sum total of our national wealth, be assessed at its true value. We may thus eliminate the adoption, even the consideration of many objectionable pro- posals for inequitable forms of taxation. ERRORS Errors may have crept into this assessment due to the inaccuracy of our maps, or due to mistakes in computation or in transcribing to the duplicate. It is fortunate for the taxpayer that a card represent- ing his property is on file with the County Auditor, indicating the frontage, the depth, the unit value, the calculation and the final value resulting. It will, therefore, be an easy matter to discover these errors and to correct them. In other counties where this method is not in vogue, property owners are unable to determine whether the assessment is a result of bad judgment or error in calculation. FORMS OF COMPLAINT Complaint forms will be furnished on applica- tion. Full data is required, giving the purchase price of the property, the name and residence of the seller, the date, amount and holder of mortgage, the amount of insurance on the building and a full and detailed description of the building as to heating, plumbing, siding, roofing, etc., an affidavit of costs as to each contractor, if a new building, and SUCH OTHER INFORMATION AS WILL PUT THE BOARD OF REVISION IN FULL POSSESSION OF THE SITUATION AND ENABLE IT TO DETER- MINE THE MERITS OF THE COMPLAINT THEREFROM. THE BOARD IS DESIROUS OF GRANTING RELIEF IN MERITORIOUS CASES. On the other hand, an unwarranted reduction of assessment will create a dozen adjacent complaints. In other words, an intended equalization and rectification as to one property owner, may become discrimination as against hundreds of similarly situated property owners. COMPLAINANTS SHOULD BE ADVISED OF THE NECESSITY FOR FAIR STATE- MENTS TO THE BOARD OF REVISION. NO BANK LOANS MONEY WITHOUT INVESTI- GATING THE ASSESSMENT. STATEMENTS ON FILE MAY MILITATE AGAINST THE PROPER ADJUSTMENT OF INSURANCE LOSS. IN APPROPRIATION CASES BY THE CITY, SUCH STATEMENT MAY MILITATE AGAINST A PROPER AWARD. SALES ARE FREQUENTLY LOST BECAUSE OF UN- TRUTHFUL STATEMENTS FILED WITH THE BOARD OF REVISION.6 1920 ASSESSMENTS— UNIT VALUE MAPS OF CLEVELAND, EAST CLEVELAND, LAKEWOOD AND Assessment Data ASSESSMENT DATA Reference is frequently made by the Assessing Department, the Auditing Department and inter- ested taxpayers to taxation data concerning the City of Cleveland, the cities of Lakewood and East Cleve- land and to the villages of Cleveland Heights and West Park, all of which really constitute metropoli- tan Cleveland. Accordingly, the assessments, tax rates and taxes levied for said cities and villages for recent years are given. The first year 1910 is given as it represents the last decennial appraisal; 1914 and 1915 are given as representing the last apprais- als by the State Tax Commission under the Warnes law; 1916, 1917, 1918, 1919 and 1920 represent years under the jurisdiction of County Auditor John A. Zangerle. In 1920 assessment values are not yet completed and represent an estimate, but will be found to be approximately correct. CITY OF CLEVELAND TAX BURDEN Year Aggregate Tax Rate Taxes Assessments Per $100 Levied 1910 $ 274,970,605 3.48 $ 9,568,977 1914 872,385,855 1.51 13,173,026 1915 891,331,835 1.53 13,637,37 7 1916 969,767,060 1.555 15,079,877 1917 1,198,713,560 1.555 18,639,995 1918 1,298,048,920 1.555 20,184,660 1919 1,389,051,290 1.775 24,651,233 1920 1,700,000,000 Est. 2.28 38,760,000 Administration Decennial Assessment State Tax Commission State Tax Commission County Auditor Zangerle County Auditor Zangerle County Auditor Zangerle County Auditor Zangerle County Auditor Zangerle Population increased from 560,663 in 1910 to 796,836 in 1920 or 42%. Assessments increased from $274,970,605 in 1910 to $1,700,000,000 in 1920 or 518%. Taxes increased from $9,568,977 in 1910 to $38,760,000 in 1920 or 328%. Quite frequently the Auditor is asked the ques- tion, “Don’t the assessments keep up with the growth in population and therefore provide sufficient revenue for the increased population?” The above figures speak for themselves. THE BURDEN OF CLEVE- LAND PROPERTY IN TAXES IS NOW THREE TIMES WHAT IT WAS IN 1915. THE 1920 TAX REPRESENTS A 90% INCREASE OVER 1918. IT IS FOUR TIMES AS GREAT AS IN 1910. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS TAX IS INDICATED IN SUBSEQUENT TABLES. LAKEWOOD TAX BURDEN Year Aggregate Tax Rate Taxes Administration Assessments Per $100 Levied 1910 $ 6,196,510 4.07 $ 252,197 Decennial Assessment 1914 40,124,110 1.12 449,390 State Tax Commission 1915 42,811,265 1.38 590,795 State Tax Commission 1915 35,268,910 1.38 500,510 County Auditor Zangerle 1917 46,707,660 1.53 714,627 County Auditor Zangerle 1918 48,060,500 1.53 735,325 County Auditor Zangerle 1919 66,839,780 1.75 1,169,696 County Auditor Zangerle 1920 71,612,960 2.51 1,797,485 County Auditor Zangerle vuumy rxuuuui tiangcxic It will be noted that the burden has increased seven-fold since 1910. The 1920 burden in taxes is two and a half times the 1918 burden. EAST CLEVELAND TAX BURDEN Year Aggregate Tax Rate Taxes Administration- Assessments Per $100 Levied 1910 $ 5,678,935 3.49 $ 198,194 Decennial Assessment 1914 342,372,570 .37 1,266,778 State Tax Commission 1915 33,320,640 1.35 449,828 State Tax Commission 1916 35,268,910 1.38 500,510 County Auditor Zangerle 19J 7 37,335,570 1.44 537.632 County Auditor Zangerle 1918 40,137,240 1.53 614,099 County Auditor Zangerle 1919 42,240,310 1.75 739,205 County Auditor Zangerle 1920 55,016,360 2.26 1,243,370 County Auditor Zangerle The 1920 tax burden is double that of 1918 and is seven times that of 1910. CLEVELAND HEIGHTS TAX BURDEN % Year Aggregate Tax Rate Taxes Administration Assessments Per $100 Levied 1910 $ 3,620,955 3.27 $ 118,405 Decennial Assessment 1914 27,264,960 .84 229,025 State Tax Commission 1915 39,989,935 .84 335,915 State Tax Commission 1916 36,892,365 1.06 391,059 County Auditor Zangerle 1917 42,320,920 1.04 440,137 County Auditor Zangerle 1918 48,223,160 1.10 530,454 County Auditor Zangerle 1919 53,925,680 1.15 620,145 County Auditor Zangerle 1920 80,562,120 1.82 1,466,230 County Auditor Zangerle The 1920 tax burden is almost three times that of 1918, while it is about thirteen times that of 1910. WEST PARK TAX BURDEN Year Aggregate Assessments 1910 $ 1,573,940 1914 11,167,200 1915 13,406,980 1916 13,295,970 1917 13,852,500 1918 15,218,990 1919 15,872,290 1920 25,000,000 Tax Rate Taxes Per $100 Levied 2.38 $ 37,459 .64 71,470 .99 132,729 1.02 135,618 1.23 170,385 1.22 185,671 1.45 230,148 1.79 447,500 Administration Decennial Assessment State Tax Commission State Tax Commission County Auditor Zangerle County Auditor Zangerle County Auditor Zangerle County Auditor Zangerle County Auditor Zangerle ASSESSMENTS ANALYZED The assessments for Cuyahoga County are di- visible as follows: Year Value of Value of Banks & Pub- Aggregate Adminis- Real Estate Pers. Prop, lie Utilities tration 1910 $ 232,580,360 $ 37,893,810 $ 45,993,405 $ 316,467,575 Dec. Asst. 1914 750,818,350 190,475,935 178,197,475 1,119,491,760 Tax Com. 1919 1,028,147,710 492,130,605 222,789,770 1,743,068,085 Zangerle Est. 1920 1,310,000,000 566,144,870 223,855,130 2,100,000,000 Zangerle It will be noted from the above that real estate values have increased 464% in 1920 over 1910. Per- sonal property has increased 1400% ; banks and pub- lic utilities (the latter assessed by State Tax Com- mission) have increased 386%. It will be found upon investigation that Cleveland assessments have in-* creased faster during the last five years than they have in any other large city. New York assessments, for example, have increased 2%% in 1920 over 1919; 6% in 1920 over 1915 and 23% in 1920 over 1910. In the City of Cleveland, real estate assessments have increased in 1920 over 1919 about 32% (2z/2% in New York City). The increase of 1920 over 1915 was 78% (6% in New York City) and 422% in 1920 over 1910 (23% in New York City). ECONOMY NECESSARY The foregoing figures attest to the unusual and extraordinary tax burden increase, not only of the City of Cleveland but also of the major taxing dis- tricts of the county. Singularly, concurrently with these generous payments of a heavily-taxed public, municipal and school bonded indebtedness have out- run these tax increases. More strangely still, is the grumbling of various taxing districts that even these great increases will prove inadequate—involve a deficit for the coming year. It would seem under such circumstances that a present duty devolves on our taxpayers. TAX-SPENDING BODIES KNOW NO LIMITS. As a rule they will spend all they get and cry for more. Every year new in- creases over the preceding year are demanded, whether justified or not. Every need satisfied creates demands for new luxuries, capricious expenditures, experimental outlays. The oncoming depression will affect inventory values of personal property. It will reduce real estate values. The high rate will render more difficult the getting of intangible property, such as deposits, low-interest bearing stocks, bonds and mortgages to the duplicate. The watchword in pub- lic business, as well as private, must be economy. There is greater need for a return to normal con- ditions in public life than in private business. The latter is re-adjusting itself in response to economic laws. The former will only return in response to enlightened public opinion vigorously expressed. Too many officials are elected who are called upon to administer million dollar corporations who have never had any business experience and who gen- erally are incompetent to administer even a $5,000 corporation. Another bad feature of public government gen- erally prevailing is that tax-spending officials have no duties or responsibilities relating to the imposition and collection of the burden of their expenditures. Public funds are expended without regard to where they are to come from. It seems sufficient to say “We need the money.” In other cases, the threat is thrown on to the public that “We will have to close the schools.” Or the question is asked “Do you want to dispense with police and fire activities?” “Do you wish to close the Court House or the infirmaries and hospitals, etc., etc.?” These threats are without re- gard to the absolute or relative needs for essentials or non-essentials. They are sure to secure public sanction to any proposed increased tax rates or bondCLEVELAND HEIGHTS, ILLUSTRATED AND EXPLAINED BY JOHN A. ZANGERLE, COUNTY AUDITOR 7 issues. If tax administration and tax spending duties were more co-ordinated, some hope of living within the public income might arise. Incidentally, it should be stated that the County Auditor views with alarm the steady increases of the tax rate, which, the coming year, will be $2.28 per $100 of assessment in the City of Cleveland. As the tax rate goes up, it becomes increasingly difficult, to secure to the duplicate low-interest bearing intangi- bles such as 4%, 5%, 6% or even 7% stocks, bonds, mortgages, debentures, deposits, etc. Increasing tax rates are sure to debase the entire personal property tax system of Ohio. The only compensating feature of such increased tax rates will be the stimulation of a demand for and it is to be hoped executed real- ization of an income tax instead of our personal property on intangibles as now prevails in New York state and the exemption from the general property tax of the aforesaid intangibles. The very high state tax rate, now approximately as great as that of the county, is another feature needing correction. Ten years ago the divorcement of state from local tax levies was regarded as the primary and most urgent reform in all the states. After Ohio had reduced the tax rate, she suddenly, in the 1920 tax year, reversed her policy. This high state rate is crystallizing sentiment throughout the state against the county auditors re-assessing any real estate. In nine-tenths of the counties of Ohio, such proposed activities, even in counties that have not been re-assessed since 1910, have been abandoned for fear of such re-assessment involving an undue contribution to the state government. Prior to 1920, local authorities appreciated that the re-assessing of a taxing district was primarily a local problem, as two-thirds, three-fourths or four-fifths of the taxes levied were local, inuring to the benefit of the mu- nicipalities or schools. It was an easy task to secure co-operation in such re-assessment. The increased state tax rate has created a feeling of hesitancy and opposition to increased assessments. Local taxing districts fear that the increased state rate of 1.8 mills and the county rate of 1 mill for schools may never come back in its redistribution. They fear that in the redistribution the highly-appraised city and village will fare worst, which is undoubtedly true. With such a sentiment prevailing, it is not beyond the reach of imagination that Ohio may follow in the foot-steps of Indiana and other states and in the course of time her general tax laws and the adminis- tration thereof become debauched and the state disgraced. WHO GETS THE MONEY That taxpayers may be informed as to which tax-spending bodies are disbursing their funds the distribution of the tax burden of the major tax- ing districts of Cuyahoga County is herewith sub- mitted. In reading these figures, it should be re- membered that the levies for boards of education contain a levy of 18c per $100 of assessment which goes to the state, but is to be re-distributed in part to the local taxing districts. Inasmuch as a great part of these funds so levied by boards of education in the local taxing districts are not re-distributed to the local boards of education but are held by the State EAST CLEVELAND TAX BURDEN DISTRIBUTION Year State County City Bd. of Educ. Total 1910.............. 17,638 37,225 59,628 93,703 198,194 1914 ............154,067 A777,733 163,791 171,187 1,266,778 1915 ............ 14,994 84,214 154,027 196,593 449,828 1916 ............ 16,321 91,666 160,402 232,121 500,510 1917 ............ 16,801 94,361 176,320 250,150 537,632 1918 ............ 18,061 94,980 241,165 260,893 614,099 1919 ............ 27,456 99,573 253,133 359,043 739,205 1920 ............ 27,510 142,052 386,104 687,704 1.243,370 Note A—In 1914 a return of over $300,000,000 against John D. Rockefeller was placed on the tax duplicate and the United States Supreme Court restrained the collection of the tax thereon. LAKEWOOD TAX BURDEN DISTRIBUTION Year State County City Bd. of Educ. Total 1910............... 8,334 40,618 102,242 101,003 252,197 1914 ............ 18,055 91,145 132,040 208,147 449,387 1915 ............ 19,265 108,201 175,350 287,978 590,794 1916 ............ 20,385 114,492 184,142 351,428 670,447 1917 ............ 21,018 118,048 204,738 370,821 714,625 1918 ............ 21,627 113,730 214,537 385,430 735,324 1919 ............ 43,445 157,561 379,790 588,898 1,169,694 1920 ............ 35,807 184,904 519,996 1,056,778 1,797,485 Superintendent of Education for the support of weak school districts, it would seem as though the amounts levied as they appear for boards of education should be reduced and such reduction should be added to the levies for state purposes as hereinafter shown. For example, approximately $1,000,000 is levied for board of education purposes in the City of Cleveland which is lost in the re-distribution by the state to the board of education of the City of Cleveland, so that the table indicating that the board of education will receive $16,257,000 should be reduced by approximately $1,000,000 and the state levy for 1920 of $850,000 should be increased by approximately $1,000,000. CLEVELAND HEIGHTS TAX BURDEN DISTRIBUTION Year State County City Bd. of Educ. Total 1910............... 4,870 23,735 53,590 36,210 118,405 1914 ............ 12,269 61,935 103,017 51,804 229,025 1915 ............ 17,995 101,070 112,875 103,975 335,915 1916 ............ 16,601 93,241 115,200 166,017 391,059 1917 ............ 19,044 106,961 123,961 190,445 440,137 1918 ............ 21.700 114,115 143,878 250,761 530,454 1919 ............ 35,051 127,119 161,383 296,592 620,145 1920 ............ 40,281 208,011 202,855 1,015,083 1,466,230 WEST PARK TAX BURDEN DISTRIBUTION Year State County City Bd. of Educ. Total 1910............... 2,116 10,317 11,647 13,380 37,460 1914 ............. 5,025 25,367 18,079 22,999 71,470 1915 ............. 6,033 33,884 49,986 42,826 132,729 1916 ............. 5,983 33,604 56,471 39,560 135,618 1917 ............. 6,233 35,010 67,875 61,267 170,385 1918 ............. 6,848 36,014 75,312 67,497 185,671 1919 ............ 10,317 37,414 91,000 91,416 230,148 1920 ............ 12,500 64,550 121,690 248,760 447,500 CLEVELAND TAX BURDEN DISTRIBUTION Year State County City 'Board of Educ. Library Total 1910............363,835.46 1,802,432.31 3,739,600.23 3,299,647.26 357,461.79 9,568,977.05 1914 ...........392,573.64 1,981,711.70 5,747,452.49 4,636,818.06 414,470.52 13,173,026.41 1915 ...........401,099.32 2,252,752.08 5,803,639.85 4,756,414.01 423,471.75 13,637,377.07 1916 ...........436,395.18 2,450,989.27 6,556,789.04 5,174,967.96 460,736.33 15,079,877.78 1917 ...........539,421.10 3,029,628.65 7,558,128.74 6,758,946.46 753,870.96 18,639,995.91 1918 ...........584,122.01 3,071,702.96 8,345,416.11 7,367,076.65 816,342.97 20,184,660.70 1919 ...........902,883.35 3,274,410.64 8,917,709.34 10,658,073.53 898,156.93 24,651,233.79 1920 ...........850,000.00 4,380,400.00 16,383,920.00 *A16,237,144.00 1,101,144.00 38,961,608.00 *A—The Board of Education will lose approximately $1,000,000 in re-distribution of Strte and County school taxes. Part of this will go to the State and part to school districts in Cuyahoga County.8 1920 ASSESSMENTS —UNIT VALUE MAPS OF CLEVELAND, EAST CLEVELAND, LAKEWOOD AND GENERAL EXPLANATION Cuyahoga County has again completed the re- assessment of Cleveland, East Cleveland, Cleveland Heights, several villages and a number of townships. While taxpayers have enjoyed an unusual oppor- tunity for participation in the correction of the pro- posed assessments and while notices have been dis- tributed as to the proposed units of the lots and lands of each district which were thereafter equal- ized, nevertheless, in a great cosmopolitan city and area, it is probably true that the majority of citizens have not become conversant with their assessments, the method adopted or the great authority support- ing the same. As most of them do not live on their property, it would be a waste of money to attempt to serve notice by mail even if time permitted the con- summation of such a stupendous task. It has been the custom in this county in the past to print in book form maps showing the unit land values with appropriate descriptive matter explain- ing how each owner may arrive at the assessment of his particular property. Not only does the pub- lication of such maps provide the best kind of notice of individual assessments of land value, both ab- solute and relative, but it offers in addition the best evidence of impartiality and uniformity, thus se- curing a wide and general public sanction and thereby eliminating complaints, saving the depart- ment much labor and great cost. Such notice is far better than the former method of issuing a book of individual values, the publication and distribution of which the Legislature happily repealed. The publishing of these maps in book form saves the department much confusion in looking up values for owners, who are generally satisfied only by com- parison with neighboring property assessments. Such a publication is of great aid to the Board of Revision in considering complaints actually filed. With the appointment of so many assessors from time to time for the various cities, villages a~d townships, it is necessary, if any semblance of uni- formity is to be attained, that printed rules and standards be available. The assessment of real estate in the various tax- ing districts is lodged in the County Auditor under the Agnew Emergency Tax Law enacted in April, 1917. Under it, the County Commissioners of each county direct which of the taxing districts of each county shall be appraised. The County Commis- sioners directed in April, 1920, that all the real estate of this county be re-assessed. The law contemplates that this shall be completed before the first Monday of July. In other words, within the short period of about two and one-half months, three cities, twenty- Land Assessments seven villages and sixteen townships, comprising over 300,000 parcels and probably 150,000 buildings, occupied by over 1,000,000 people shall be assessed. What is involved in such a task few appreciate. While this work is in progress, approximately 50,000 individual personal property returns and 5,000 cor- poration returns must be administered, and the other duties, heretofore comprising the sole function of the County Auditor, must concurrently be performed. This description of the herculean task confront- ing this County Assessor is here briefly set forth, not only that the many non-resident City, County and State taxing authorities, heretofore seeking light from this county in taxation matters, may appreciate the conditions confronting us, but also that the public may exercise graciousness and generosity for the relatively small number of mistakes and errors neces- sarily arising—due to our inaccurate maps, to tem- porary and inexperienced clerks, etc. The amount of work involved in assessing peri- odically the many lots of the City of Cleveland and its adjacent villages and cities may be indicated from the great number of parcels of land and buildings therein as follows: PARCELS OF LAND AND BUILDINGS Land Cleveland .................................... 179,490 Lakewood ....................................... 14,120 East Cleveland................................... 7,590 Cleveland Heights ............................... 7,751 West Park ...................................... 14,817 All Villages, Cities and Townships in Cuyahoga County....................................282,173 Buildings 100,876 7,423 4,457 2,958 1,616 129,072 The above data is for the year 1919. There were approximately 84,500 individual owners of Cleve- land property and approximately 36,029 vacant par- cels in the city. UNIFORMITY For years Cleveland has been the pioneer in its efforts towards uniformity. Values are opinion only. Last year 40,000 transfers of property were made in this county. 40,000 buyers felt they bought at less than the property was worth and in each of the 40,000 cases, the seller sold at more than it was worth. For this reason the department, wherever possible, adopts standards, rules and principles for application to similar conditions. It is not so material as to what these standards are as that uniformity shall prevail. Property owners are willing to bear the same burden as their neighbors, but no more. The unwillingness to pay taxes always arises through fear that dis- crimination is practiced. Not only must uniformity be practiced for the sake of the owner, but to protect the name and reputation of the assessor... Discrim- ination as between neighbors is bound to cast doubt on the honesty of the official and lose to him his greatest asset—the confidence of the community. Discrimination is bound to produce an endless amount of confusion, partiality, favoritism and finally graft. In the matter of buildings, building experts, i. e., building contractors disagree 40 per cent and 50 per cent in their bids on new constructions. How much more latitude must then be tolerated in the assessors’ judgment when age, condition, location and utility are considered? But not one hair’s breadth of devia- tion will or should be tolerated in the uniformity of factors used for similar buildings. For this reason, the factors must be explicit, easy of application and applicable to general standards, which, of themselves, shall be simple, public and easily comprehensible. UNDER-VALUATION It must be patent to all that an assessment made in double-quick time, aiming at a minimum number of complaints, must be under rather than over 100 per cent. So—even with a most careful and painstaking assessment of our highest class of property—in view of the fact that it pays to hire lawyers and it is possi- ble to hire experts to testify to lower values, (being merely opinion) in view of the fact that public officials assess thousands of properties and in view of the further fact that all evidence presented to assessors is bearish not bullish, it must be evident that assess- ments will be under 100 per cent in any event. For these and many other reasons, the department has always, in case of doubt, given the property owner the benefit, not only in case of land, but also in case of building valuations. CHANGING USES OF PROPERTY The greatest difficulty experienced in this assess- ment is in the valuation of property changing in use. For example, residential property worth $50.00 per foot may be improved with improvements also worth $50.00 per foot. Some enterprising real estate oper- ator concludes that because the property is on a cor- ner in a good renting locality that it would be an ideal site for an apartment house and he buys it for $100 per foot, razing the buildings. If the site is assessed as the neighboring property, viz., $50.00, it under- assesses the apartment site. If the apartment site sale is considered in valuing the inside improved resi- dential property site and the improvement appraisal remains, it over-assesses the residence property. Likewise, when residential property is invaded by a factory. Residential improved property mayCLEVELAND HEIGHTS, ILLUSTRATED AND EXPLAINED BY JOHN A. ZANGERLE, COUNTY AUDITOR 9 be worth, e. g., $25.00. A factory comes along and pays $25.00 for the land and perhaps $50.00 per foot for the residence, which latter thereupon is demol- ished. Such manufacturing concern will carry on their books and real estate experts will value the site at $75.00 to $100 per foot front. If we assess the street at $75.00 the manufacturing value, we over- assess the residence. If we assess the street at $25.00 per foot, its residence value, we under-assess the manufacturing property. These cases are merely instances showing how under-valuation is bound to creep in, even though we were not restricted as to time. On the other hand, some of these residential loca- tions are changing so fast into a manufacturing dis- trict that they lose their value for residence purposes and take on a business or manufacturing value. The district east of 21st Street, and north of Euclid, for example, is still largely used for residence purposes, but it bears an assessed value for commercial pur- poses. This transformation, of necessity, requires a special obsolescence depreciation for such residence buildings. For business purposes they are worthless. This change in use and corresponding necessary adjustment in the land and building assessment per- tains to all thoroughfares, to a greater degree as the thoroughfare approaches and converges to the center of the city or to the many commercial sub-centers of the city, and to a less degree as these centers are left behind. CITY OF CLEVELAND LAND ASSESSMENTS In the City of Cleveland outline maps of each district were prepared which maps indicate, in a general way and without being drawn to scale, the streets of the district. Deputy auditors viewed the property in all of these streets and consulted local committees, the real estate experts, bank appraisers and other interested taxpayers. In this connection, a word should be said concerning the valuable as- sistance rendered by the Building Owners and Man- agers Association. While they differed rather widely from the Auditor as to the values in certain sections of the city, on the whole they displayed a spirit of fairness and candor. Data was presented by them not available to the assessing department and which must have taken months of concentrated effort to secure. It was contended that the existing high rate of money, the oncoming depression, the impending high rate of taxation demanded safe and sane values rather than the highly speculative shoestring values now frequently apparent in long time leases but sel- dom evident in cash sales. It was for this and other reasons that the Auditor felt justified in adopting conservative values rather than the extreme opinions of certain advisers. After fixing the units of value for each street, maps were presented to the taxation committee of the Real Estate Board, which latter had not only appointed a special taxation committee to co-operate with the Auditor in the preparation of the taxing lists of the City of Cleveland but had even appro- priated of their funds to defray necessary or inci- dental expenses. As to the down-town section of the city and Euclid Avenue, which comprises per- haps 50% of the entire land value of the city, the Auditor has adopted the values as originally sub- mitted and afterwards modified by the special tax- ation committee, which reported to the Auditor as follows: THE CLEVELAND REAL ESTATE BOARD 717 Williamson Building CLEVELAND Sept. 20th, 1920. John A. Zangerle, Auditor Cuyahoga County, Cleveland, Ohio. Dear Mr. Zangerle:— The values placed by the special committee of the Cleveland Real Estate Board on the plat presented to it by your office, repre- sents the composite opinion of the committee of the true unit value in money, to the best of their knowledge and belief. Yours very truly, H. H. HAMPTON, Chairman. edwin h. McIntosh HEATON PENNINGTON, JR. L. H. WAIN G. B. KENNERDELL IVAN A. GREENWOOD WALTER P. GREENWOOD C. F. LAUGHLIN. As to the other sections of the city, the taxation committee of the Real Estate Board, H. H. Hampton, Chairman, advised with such board members as were especially informed as to such local sections or dis- tricts. A full list of such advisers to the committee, as well as a list of experts consulted by the Auditor and his deputies, prefaces this work. In this con- nection we acknowledge our sincere appreciation, both to each of the advisers to the Auditor and espe- cially to the Real Estate Board. Services worth thousands of dollars were freely, earnestly and gra- tuitously given to the cause of equitable taxation. The assistance so generously offered purely from a sense of civic duty endows the assessment with a sanction and validity impossible under the old auto- cratic hit and guess method of appraisal. After these units were thus modified by the Tax- ation Committee the Auditor had maps printed of such modified units, distributing a map to each store and householder of the respective districts, asking the taxpayer to immediately criticise such proposed units. The taxpayer was notified that a failure to criticise would be accepted as a sanction thereof, and that failing in such criticism, the units would be adopted within ten days. This procedure in the appraisal of the land values of Cleveland has operated to secure an equalization of values before the fact rather than after the fact. Appraisals once entered on the duplicate can never be altered without creating a great deal of inequality and dissatisfaction. It has always been the Auditor’s contention that an assessment once made can never thereafter be equalized without creating greater confusion. In other words, it is imperative that equalization be effected before the assessment is finally adopted. VILLAGE AND TOWNSHIP ASSESSMENT In villages and townships, the following letter was sent to the village and school authorities: “April, 1920. Honorable Sir:— The County Commissioners have ordered the Auditor to re- assess all cities, villages and townships of this county, which will necessitate the re-assessment of your village. I would advise that you convene the village Council and Board of Education members in a joint session. Let this body appoint an honorary committee of three prominent property owners. This committee will then appoint an acting and working assessor whom the Auditor will compensate at $5.00 per day. After a conference of such committee and assessor with the Auditor, such assessor will assess all lands and buildings in his taxing district, reporting to the honorary committee his complete assessment. The assessor will then notify all property owners of such valuation fixed by him. The committee will revise all complaints against such valuations, reporting such revision assessment to the Auditor for adoption. The Auditor is thus allowing localities the right of self-appraise- ment on the theory, 1st, that the localities are better qualified and more conversant with locality values than any non-resident individual may be; 2d, that the taxation of real property is pre-eminently a local matter since from three-fourths to four-fifths of the taxes raised thereon are used for local, municipal or educational purposes, while the state and county enjoy but approximately one-fourth to one-fifth thereof. It is therefore more important that the assessment satisfy the local communities than that it accord with the county or state wishes. # In view of the fact that law contemplates the assessment of the entire county by the first Monday in July, you will appreciate the necessity for immediate action. All inquiries with reference to your assessment should be directed to Geo. E. Asling, chief clerk of this office. Respectfully yours, JOHN A. ZANGERLE, County Auditor.,, In compliance with the above, each village and township desiring a re-assessment, selected its most representative and honored citizens who served without compensation and purely from a sense of civic duty and pride. Men were selected who would scorn public office and public reward. These men, not only assessed the real estate through their ap- pointee, but also heard all complaints thereon. This assessment, so far as fairness, uniformity and full value is concerned, will undoubtedly prove to be the most creditable ever made in this county. A list of these committees appears on the first pages of this book. The taxpayers of the villages and townships are surely deeply indebted to the members of the villages’ and townships’ committees, for tfie unselfish devotion and assistance rendered to the cause of uniformity and fairness in taxation.10 1920 ASSESSMENTS — UNIT VALUE MAPS OF CLEVELAND, EAST CLEVELAND, LAKEWOOD AND Land Calculations The following rules and methods, used by the department in calculating the individual values from the given units, will aid the taxpayer in proving his own assessment. The standard unit of depth of lots is 100 feet. The Somers curve is used for variations from the standard. The so-called Zangerle curve is used for corner influence additions. Figures on inside of lot indicate dimensions. Figures on outside of lot in- dicate street values. The indicated units on City Property are for standard lots 100 feet deep. The following tables give in epitomized form the Cleveland and other tables for comparison: STANDARDS COMPARED feet Depth in Cleveland Curve, Chicago j Neill Rule (Hoffman) ! Mil- waukee 1912 i Harper Edgar London Davies’ Curve N. Y. Baltimore | (standard i i 150 feet) | 5 14.35 14.9 17 17 23.0 12.5 9 10 25.00 19.9 26 28 32.0 21,8 15 15 33.22 25.0 33 37 39.0 29.2 21 20 41.00 30.1 39 44 45.0 35.8 27 25 47.90 34.3 44 43 50.0 41.5 33 30 54.00 39.9 49 54 55.0 47.0 38.5 40 64.00 48.8 58 63 63.0 56.7 49 50 72.50 57.5 67 70 70.5 65.8 58.5 60 79.50 67.0 7A 77 77.5 73.3 67 70 85.60 76.0 81 84 83.6 80.5 73.9 75 88.30 79.3 84 87 86.6 84.1 76.9 80 90.9G 84.0 88 90 89.4 87.5 79.6 90 95.60 92.2 94 95 95.0 94.1 84.2 100 100.00 100.00 100 100 100.0 100.0 88 110 104.00 108.00 103 105.0 106.9 91.1 120 107.50 116.0 107 109.5 111.1 93.8 125 109.05 119.3 112 109 112.6 113.7 95 140 113.00 131.0 113 118.2 121.2 98.2 150 115.00 137.5 118 115 122.4 126.1 100 160 116.80 145.0 117 126.4 131.1 175 119.14 154.3 122 119 132.3 138.5 180 119.80 158.0 120 134.2 141.2 200 122.00 170.0 125 122 141.4 149.0 Example—Given a lot 80 feet front, 150 feet deep unit value $50.00. According to the Cleveland table 150 feet is equal to 115 per cent of the unit. There- fore $50 times 115 per cent equals $57.50 Actual Unit. Eighty feet by $57.50 equals $4600, value of lot. It will be noticed that there is not a very wide variation in the valuation of the different parts of a lot, 100 feet in depth under the various standards. The apparent differences are largely due to a change of standard unit. When it is borne in mind that a change of standard (150 feet e. g. instead of 100 feet) involves a change of unit of value it will be seen that even in such case there is great similarity in the valuation of the parts of such lots. These rules are a modification of the more easily memorized 4-3-2-1 rule, meaning by this that the first 25 feet are worth 40%, the second 25 feet 30%, etc. The table following is more readable: 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 4-2-3-1 RULE COMPARED 4-3-2-1 Rule 25 feet = 40% | 25 feet = 40% 25 feet = 30% ! 50 feet = 70%- 25 feet = 20% 75 feet = 90%, 25 feet = 10% 100 feet = 100%- Somers Rule 25 feet = 47.90%- 50 feet = 72.50% 75 feet = 88.30% 100 feet = 100 % Total 100 feet = 100%- From the above, it will be seen that the 4-3-2-1 rule differs from the Somers and other rules in plac- ing less value in the first 25 feet. For field work, how- ever, it is more usable because of its simplicity. A more detailed table of the Cleveland (Somers’) percentage of unit value for depth follows: CLEVELAND STANDARD Percentage of Unit Value for Lots from 1 to 700 Feet Deep. Depth. 50 72.50 100 100.00 150 115.00 200 122.00 1 ft. 3.10 1 73.25 1 100.41 1 115.19 1 122.00 2 6.10 2 74.00 2 100.85 2 115.38 2 122.20 3 9.00 3 74.75 3 101.27 3 115.57 3 122.30 4 11.75 4 75.50 4 101.70 4 115.76 4 122.40 5 14.35 5 76.20 5 102.08 5 115.95 5 122.50 6 16.75 6 76.90 6 102.48 6 116.12 210 122.95 7 19.05 7 77.55 7 102.88 7 116.29 15 123.38 8 21,20 8 78.20 8 103.25 8 116.46 20 123.80 9 23 20 9 78.85 9 103.62 9 116.62 30 124.50 10 25.00 60 79.50 110 104.00 160 116.80 240 125.35 1 26.70 1 80.11 1 104.36 1 116.96 50 126.05 2 28.36 2 80.77 2 104.72 2 117.13 60 126.75 3 29.99 3 81.38 3 105.08 3 117.30 70 127.40 4 31.61 4 82.00 4 105.43 4 117.47 80 128.05 5 33.22 5 82.61 5 105.78 5 117.64 90 128.65 6 34.92 6 83.21 6 106.13 6 117.79 300 129.25 7 36.41 7 83.82 7 106.47 7 117.94 10 129.80 8 37.97 8 84.42 8 106.81 8 118.09 20 130.35 9 39.50 9 85.01 9 107.15 9 118.24 30 130.90 20 41.00 70 85.60 120 107.50 170 118.40 340 131.40 1 42.50 1 86.15 1 107.80 1 118.54 50 131.90 2 43.96 2 86.70 2 108.11 2 118,70 60 132.40 3 45.30 3 87.24 3 108.43 3 118.85 70 132.85 4 46.61 4 87.78 4 108.75 4 119.00 80 133.30 5 47.90 5 88.30 5 109.05 5 119.14 90 133.75 6 49.17 6 88.82 6 109.35 6 119.28 400 134.20 7 50.40 7 89.35 7 109.65 7 119.41 10 134.60 8 51.61 8 89.87 8 109.93 8 119.54 20 135.00 9 52.8 i 9 90.39 9 110.21 9 119.67 30 135.40 30 54.00 80 90.90 130 110.50 180 119.80 440 135.80 1 55.05 1 91.39 1 110.76 1 119.92 50 136.15 2 56.10 2 91.89 2 111.02 2 120.05 60 136.50 3 57.15 3 92.38 3 111.28 3 120.18 70 136.85 4 58.20 4 92.86 4 111.55 4 120.31 80 137.20 5 59.20 5 93.33 5 111.80 5 120.43 90 137.55 6 60.30 6 93 80 6 112.05 6 120.55 500 137.85 7 61.25 7 94.27 7 112.28 7 120.66 10 138.15 8 62.20 8 94.73 8 112.52 8 120.77 20 138.45 9 63.10 9 95.17 9 112.76 9 120.88 30 138.75 40 64.00 90 95.60 140 113 00 190 121.00 540 139.05 1 64.95 1 96.04 1 113.20 1 121.10 50 139,30 2 65.90 2 96.50 2 113.43 2 121.21 60 139.55 3 66.75 3 96.95 3 113.64 3 121.32 70 139.80 4 67 60 4 97.40 4 113.85 4 121.43 80 140.05 5 68.45 5 97.85 5 114.05 5 121.53 600 140.55 6 69.30 6 98.30 6 114.25 6 121.62 20 140.95 7 70.10 7 95.74 7 114.45 7 121.71 40 141.35 8 70.90 8 99.17 8 114.64 8 121.80 60 141.75 9 71.70 9 99,58 9 114.82 9 121.90 80 142.05 50 72.50 100 100.00 150 115.00 200 122.00 700 142.35 CORNER LOT ASSESSMENTS No subject of appraisal is so thoroughly mysti- cal, so undeveloped as the matter of corner lots. Even real estate experts still add 20% to inside lot values to express their opinion of corner lot values. Such use of a common rule is unscientific. Corner lots’ additional value over inside lots must depend on their depth, their width and the relative value of the side street. Assuming a business lot 25 feet on a corner by 100 feet deep—such a lot is barely suf- ficient to erect a modern structure upon without leaning, so to speak, on the side street. Almost the entire lot can be utilized, where the inside lots may not be so used. That is to say, every foot of the depth of a corner lot has a frontage on the side street. It has light, air, access. It is therefore worth more than the inside lot, even though the side street is only an alley 12 feet wide. For the purposes indicated, a 25 foot lot, corner of a 12 foot alley, is worth practically as much as perhaps a 35 foot inside lot. In other words, such lot is worth 40% more than the inside lot. However, as the lot gets wider, the relative value of an alley to the greater width is less. The deeper the lot on such alley, the more the rear value is dependant thereon. Its value might be very, very little without the facilities of access, unless it had a rear frontage or other easements or rights, which frequently are costly to secure. If a mere public alley or private right-of-way, adds from 40% down to the value of a business lot, how much greater per cent of increased value will arise when such alley becomes a 50 or 75 foot alley, dead end street, private right-of-way, permitting high structures, affording light, air, loading, unload- ing, turning, etc.? When to these facilities for ad- ditional use of ground floor, basement and upper stories, we now assume a live street, involving added showcase facilities, sidewalk traffic, more buying— when these intersecting streets are worth from 10% to 100% of main street values, it must be evident that such corner lots become more valuable than alley corners and that they take on additional values in proportion to their width and the relative value of the side street. When such a corner lot is very deep, permitting and requiring stores to be fronted on the side street, it must be evident that a greater per cent of value inures to a deep corner lot than to a shallow corner lot. Any system devised for determining corner lot values must consider and value each of these varying factors. The Cleveland system has now been in vogue several years. It has given almost general satisfac- tion. It requires but a few minutes of application toCLEVELAND HEIGHTS, ILLUSTRATED AND EXPLAINED BY JOHN A. ZANGERLE, COUNTY AUDITOR 11 understand it. I know of no real estate expert who, upon investigation and understanding corner lot. ap- praisals, is not a warm advocate thereof. This, of course, does not mean that exception to our rule must not be made. The entire system of rules laid down in this book merely attempts to adopt values to correspond to actual and true values in general. Our rules and standards are measures, not creators of value. The system of figuring corner values herein- after set forth is probably the most elastic and adapt- able to variable conditions ever devised for public use. In the 1916 assessment the very simple Balti- more system of treating a corner lot as two lots, one fronting on each street, was used. Some ob- jection thereto was interposed on the part of the real estate interests. An examination of hundreds of important corners, comparing such assessments with the known sales or capitalized leases where the units were approximately known and correct, established to the satisfaction of the Auditor that the Baltimore method was not excessive or unjust. However, in deference to the Cleveland Real Estate Board members, the second largest of such bodies in the United States, a reduction of approximately 28% in such corner additions was decided upon. In corner values as with inside property, the depart- ment again felt that it is impossible to get a perfect appraisal but rather one approximately correct, be- ing careful on the side of under-assessment rather than over-assessment. The filing and hearing of 12,000 complaints as in 1910, with a Board of Revis- ion composed of county officials immersed in the toils of their elected functions, would be a calamity and render difficult proper attention to other important assessments. In figuring a corner lot 100 feet front by 100 feet deep, it must be figured as the sum of two separate lots, one fronting on the main street and the other as fronting on the side street. Thus the frontage of the one lot becomes the depth of the other. In figuring the main street lot, the percentage of value for its depth is figured on the usual percentage for inside lots, viz, 100% for 100 feet in depth. The side street lot however will be figured on a different percentage for depth, viz. 72 % for 100 feet in depth. In case such side street lot is of less depth than 100 feet, use the following percentage for such partial depth. CORNER LOT PERCENTAGE TABLE Zangerle Curve (For Depth of Side Street Which is the Frontage on the Main Street) Feet % Feet % Feet % Feet % Feet % 5 15. 25 46. 45 60.7 65 67. 85 70.5 10 25. 30 51. 50 63. 70 68. 90 71. 15 33. 35 55. 55 64.5 75 69. 95 71.5 20 40. 40 58. 60 66. 80 70. 100 72. Example: High valued street, or front is worth $1,000 per foot, and side street is worth $300 per foot. Lot is 50 ft. w7ide and 100 ft. deep. Mair\ 5 tract »looo 50 * Bo 5)0 0 0 72** 5S Main St. 50 ft. front X 100% (100' depth) of $1,000=$50,000 Front value. Side St. 100 ft. front X 63% ( 50' depth) of 300= 18,900 Corner influence. $68,900 Lot value. Figure corner influence back 100 feet from the side street. When finding the value of a corner lot, if it is more than 100 feet deep from the front or high valued street, find its value at the high unit for 100 feet deep only and then find the value of the rear of the lot as though it faced the low valued or side street only. For example: If the frontage (Fig. 1) on the $300 side street had been 120 feet, the additional 20 feet would be figured at the side street unit for a depth of 50 feet, making the following value: 20 ft. X 72.5 %(50 ft. depth) @ $300..............................$ 4,350 Lot value shown above ............................................ 68,900 Lot 50' X 120', Total Value .................................$73,250 In the experience of the assessors, purely resi- dence corners have no value over inside lots. Busi- ness property of a low value should take on a lesser per cent of corner influence than business property of a high value. In view of the fact that thorough- fares extending into the suburbs are first sold for residence purposes, selling at the same price as in- side lots, and that such thoroughfares gradually change to business as the locality builds up, it be- comes a difficult matter to determine generally when and what property shall be deemed residence, semi- business or full business property. However, the following general rules will do no violence to actual conditions: RESIDENCE CORNERS Purely residential corner property is given no additional value over an inside lot. In case of doubt as to the proper classification of a street, the character of present building opera- tions should control. In case store buildings NOW predominate in construction over dwellings, it should be classified as business. SEMI-BUSINESS CORNERS ($50 AND UNDER) All thoroughfares enjoying street railway traffic are changing from residence to business property and will therefore take on a corner influence, excepting that corners on such streets of less value than $50 will get no corner influence but will be figured at 100 feet deep on the main street and the balance of the depth as fronting in the side street on the Somers curve. Even this treatment will involve generally an increase of approximately 20% over an inside lot of 150 feet in depth. For administrative reasons, such corner lot only (i. e., not the second lot) will be so figured, irrespective of its width, in cases of semi-business property worth less than $50. BUSINESS CORNERS All business lots with main street value of $200 take on the full increment as shown heretofore. For business lots of less value add as follows: TABLE OF PARTIAL CORNER ADDITIONS Corner Lots Worth $200 or Less per Foot on the Main Street If valued $ 50—$ 59 inclusive, add 25% of corner influence “ 60— 69 «« “ 30% “ “ “ “ 70— 79 << “ 35% U “ u “ “ 80— 89 “ “ 40% ii “ u <« “ 90— 99 “ “ 45% u u “ «< 100— 109 (( “ 50% a “ << “ “ no- 119 “ >> 55% u U (( “ “ 120— 129 (( (6 60% “ “ “ << “ 130— 139 “ a 65% u *< <« <( 140— 149 (( u 70% ii “ (( “ “ 150— 159 “ u 75% a “ (( a << 160— 169 (( “ 80% « « “ <» “ 170— 179 “ a 85% (i “ “ “ 180— 189 (< a 90% << “ “ “ “ 190— 199 “ “ 95% u << (< a << over 200 (( a 100% “ “ Example: Lot 50 ft. front on street worth $50 per ft., and is 100 ft. deep along street worth $40 per ft. Main St. 50 ft. front X 100% (100 ft. depth) of $50.................................=$2,500 Front value. Side St. 100 ft. front X 63%~ (Z. Curve) (50 ft. depth) of $40=$2,52C. 25% thereof.. = 630 Corner influence. $3,130 Main 5treat ft 50 In the above case the full side street value as an inside lot would be 100 feet @ $40=$4,000. The cor- ner influence value as per the above table would be 63% thereof=$2,520. The unit of the main street of this corner being only $50.00 it is desirable that we take only part of such added value. According to the above table we should take only 25% thereof, which equals $630.00. Had the main street unit been $200 or over the full corner influence addition would have been taken. INSIDE CORNER LOTS When a corner lot is less than 100 feet in front- age the second lot is assessed on a valuation equival-12 1920 ASSESSMENTS — UNIT VALUE MAPS OF CLEVELAND, EAST CLEVELAND, LAKEWOOD AND ent to the difference between a 100 x 100 foot lot and the actual corner lot. These units are relative, not absolute. For ex- ample, if the main street unit is $3,000 and the side street unit is $600 the relationship would be equiva- lent to 5 to 1 units above indicated, being the $500 to $100 units. TRIANGULAR LOTS Produce the value of the lot as a rectangle at its given width and depth, at its unit value. When the base of the triangle is on the street take the following percentage of its full value. Said percentages being governed by the depth of the perpendicular of the triangle: When perpendicular is 10 feet, take 50 % of full value “ “ 20 << tt 55.5% a <; a tt “ “ 30 “ tt 58 % tt a a “ tt 40 a 59 % a a “ tt a ft 50 “ a 60 % a a a tt tt “ 60 a “ 61 % a a “ “ “ “ 70 “ “ 62 % a tt a tt tf 80 <4 “ 63 % tt tt “ “ tt “ 90 a “ 64 % a a a “ ti 100 tt “ 65 % a tt “ “ “ tt 110 “ “ 66 % tt a a “ tt “ 120 a “ 67 % a tt “ tt tt tt 130 “ a 68 % a a a tt tt tt 140 “ tt 69 % a tt tt “ “ 150 tt tt 70 % a a u tt tt tt 200 a “ 73.5% a a “ “ tt tt 250 a a 77.5% a a u “ ti tt 300 a tt 79 % tt it “ tt tt “ 350 “ “ 80 % tt a a tt tt tt 400 “ tt 81 % a tt “ “ tt tt 450 a tt 82 % tt tt a tt tt “ 500 tt a 83 % a ti “ “ tt ti 550 tt tt 84 % tt tt a “ a “ 600 a a 85 % tt tt “ 5treet $100 Example: Triangle with base on street worth $100 per foot. Base of triangle from A to B is 50 feet. Length of the perpendicular from A to C is 100 feet. Produce rectangle A B D C. whose value would be $100 x 100% x 50—$5,000. The perpen- dicular A C is 100 feet. 100 feet on the table equals 65%—the triangle ABC equals 65% of $5,000, or $3,250. When the apex of the triangle is on the street, as shown in above example, BCD, you produce its value as a rectangle as before, and then take the per- centage thereof that would be given by deducting the per cent representative of the depth of the perpen- dicular from 100%. Example: Triangle B D C as a rectangle is worth $5,000. Its perpendicular is 100 feet long. A 100 foot perpendicular with the base on the street is worth 65% , and when the apex is on the street it is worth 100%—65%=35%. Therefore triangle B D C is worth 35% of $5,000 or $1,750. The above percentages of value are merely con- venient tables resulting from the use of the Somers table of values for variations of the standard. The same results would be secured by zoning the lot, i. e. taking the average width of each zone 10 feet in depth each as a rectangle or trapezium and multiply- ing by the Somers table of percentage for each such 10 foot zone and adding the result as hereinafter more fully described. This triangular system will be found to save the labor of writing, calculating and adding the several zones of each lot, a very laborious method. IRREGULAR LOTS In computing the value of irregular lots, cut them up into triangles, rectangles and parallelograms wherever possible. A B C D (Fig. 6) is a lot 186 feet front, 82 feet deep, and 90 feet rear. From the points D and C, draw lines to E and F, perpendicular to the line A. B. The lot A B C D will then be divided into the rec- tangle C D E F, 90 feet front, and the two right- angle triangles A E D, which measurements show have a 50 foot base, and B F C, 46 foot base on the street. All these parts have a depth of 82 feet. This plan makes the following equations: C D E F, frontage 90 ft. x 91.89% (82 ft. depth) @ $500....$41,350.00 Tri A E D frontage 50 ft. x 91.89% x 63.2% (% when Tri) @ $500 ................................................... 13,360.00 Tri B F C frontage 46 ft. x 91.89% x 63.2% (is 82 ft. deep) @ $500 ................................................. 14,520.00 ft/ so* I The triangular lot ABC (Fig. 7) has 145 feet front but no right angle nor perpendicular depth. From the point A, drop the perpendicular A D, making the right angle triangle ADC with 210 feet on street. From this plan you make the following equations: Tri ADC frontage 210 ft. x 105.78% (115 ft. depth) x 66.5% (%■ when triangle is 115 feet deep) @ $500 equals......$73,750.00 Less Tri A D B frontage 65 ft. x 105.78% (115 ft. deep) x 66.5% (% when triangle is 115 ft. deep) @ $500 equals.. 22,830.00 Equals Tri ABC frontage 145 ft. x 105.78% (115 ft. depth) x 66.5% (% when triangle is 115 ft. deep) @ $500 equals .$50,920.00 A Fig. 7 The above equations illustrate the following rule: The value of any triangular piece of land is its base in feet times the street standard unit changed to the correct unit by applying the proper percentage for the perpendicular depth. Fig. 8 is a lot A B C D having no two sides parallel. Prolong the street line A B to indefinite points on both sides of the lot; extend the rear line C D to the street making the line C E; from the points C and D draw the lines C F and D G perpendicular to the street. The value of the lot will be the value of C E F less the value of B C F and A D E as set forth in the following equations: Ft. Ft. % of % of St. Front Deep Depth Tri. Unit Tri. C E F 326 —1[168) x 118.09 x 71.26 @ 100...........$27,430.00 Less Tri. B C F 32 — (168) x 118.09 x 71.26 @ 100.. ..$11,845.00 Tri. A D E 204 — (82) x 91.89 x 63.2 @ 100. .. . 2,695.00 14,540.00 Land value of lot A B C D...........................$12,890.00 q 3Z6 #IOO StT Fig. 8 ZONE METHOD When it is impracticable to divide a lot into tri- angles, rectangles and parallelograms, the zone method is used for figuring the value. To obtain the land value in this way proceed as follows: Figure 9 is an irregular lot with frontage A B of 80 feet and extreme perpendicular depth (A C) of 80 feet. Measure along the perpendicular depth and at every ten feet from the frontage draw lines parallel to the street, dividing the lot into eight zones. The width of these zones through their centers are used for figuring the value. The width of No. 1 zone is the distance between the side lines of the lot at 5 feet from the street; the width of No. 2 zone is taken at 15 feet from the street, etc. (Correct measurement of any lot line may be made if parcel is sketched on cross- section paper). The correct unit for each zone is ob- tained by taking the proper per cent of the street unitCLEVELAND HEIGHTS, ILLUSTRATED AND EXPLAINED BY JOHN A. ZANGERLE, COUNTY AUDITOR 13 according to the perpendicular distance from the front of the lot. No. 1 zone being the first 10 feet in depth will have for a correct unit 25 per cent of the street unit. No. 2 zone being the next 10 feet in depth takes 16 per cent of the street unit for its cor- rect unit, etc. (See Somers table for the per cent ap- plied to each zone). The width in feet times the correct unit makes the value for each zone. Added together they make the total value of the land. VALUE No. 1 zone, 25 % of $100 or $25.00 x 81 feet average width.. .$2,025.00 No. 2 zone, 16 % of $100 or $16.00 x 82 feet average width. . . 1,312.00 No. 3 zone, 13 % of $100 or $13.00 x 83 feet average width.. . 1,079.00 No. 4 zone, 10 % of $100 or $10.00 x 75 feet average width. . . 750.00 No. 5 zone, 8.5% of $100 or $ 8.50 x 68 feet average width... 578.00 No. 6 zone, 7 '/< of $100 or $ 7.00 x 66 feet average width.. . 462.00 No. 7 zone, 6.1% of $100 or $ 6.10 x 48 feet average width.. . 292.00 No. 8 zone, 5.3% of $100 or $ 5.30 x 15 feet average width. .. 79.50 $6,578.30 When a lot has a frontage on a main street of more than 100 feet and a depth on a side street of more than 100 feet, you will proceed as follows: First: Find the value of the corner for a width of 100 feet, on the high valued street (A E, see Fig. 12) at the high unit for a depth of 100 feet (A G). Second: Find the value of the lot for the balance of its width (B E), after deducting 100 feet, at the value of the high unit for the full depth of the lot (B E H C). Third: Find the value of the rear of the lot lying back of the first parcel computed as though it had a frontage on the side street (D G) equal to the differ- ence between 100 feet and the full length of the lot and for a depth of not over 100 feet (D H). Fourth: For corner influence, find the value for 100 feet front (A G) and 100 feet deep (A E) at the side unit. If the lot is irregular in shape, cut it up into rectangles, triangles, parallelograms or trapezoids, bearing in mind the dimensions as set forth for each example. See example. Fig. 12 1st—100 ft. x 100% (100 ft. depth) @ $2,500.00 equals.........$250,000.00 2nd—44.20 ft. x 119.46% (177.41 ft. average depth) @ $2,500 equals.................................................... 132,000.00 3rd—41 ft. x 96.3% (91.57 ft. depth) x 64% (tri. base on street) @ $1,500.00 equals ................................ 37,900.00 86.48 ft. x 96.3% (91.57 ft. depth) @ $1,500.00 equals......... 124,920.00 4th—100 ft. x 72% (% cor. infl. for 100 ft. depth) @ $1,500.00 equals.................................................... 108,000.00 Lot value .................................................$652,820.00 ALLEYS Alleys should have units assigned when lots have only such accessibility, and when they have a unit value assigned shall be treated as streets with- out regard to their width. If the alley does not have a unit assigned, then add one-half of the width of the alley to the lot, either as an addition to its width or to its depth, according to where said alley is situated. Example: Lot 50 feet wide and 100 feet deep has 12 foot alley in rear. Add one-half of side alley to lot as width and make lot 50 plus 6 or 56 feet wide. Add one-half of width of alley in rear to length of lot and make lot 100 plus 6 or 106 feet long. Complete frontage 56 feet x 102.48%, (106 feet Straat frioo \tmn full depth) @ $100=$5,738.88 or $5,740. The above rule applies to business or semi-busi- ness property. No addition is made to the value of residence property for side alley influence. When an alley runs along the side of a residence lot it frequently decreases its value. MERGER When a lot through from one street to another, as the lot A C D E, Fig. 5, and one street has a higher unit than the other, you must merge the value; that is, find the point B in the total depth A C where the value of a foot will be about the same whether figured at the high or the low unit. To find this, add the high and low units together; thus, 3 plus 1 equals 4, obtain- ing the whole, of which each unit is a proportionate part. Divide the number of feet in depth, (160) by the sum obtained and multiply the quotient, (40) by each of the units separately, (3x4= 120, and 1 x 40 = 40) and the result will be the number of feet in depth that each unit must extend into the lot before it will merge with the other unit. Example: Lot 50 feet wide, 160 feet deep, fronts on street worth $3,000 per foot and backs on street worth $1,000 per foot. Add $3,000 and 1,000 equals 4,000 or a unit of 4. 160 divided by 4 equals 40. 3,000 /4,000 equals 3/4. If %j. equals 40, equals 3 x 40 equals 120 feet. 1,000/4,000 equals % and equals 40 feet. Therefore the high unit will extend the depth or 120 feet into the lot and the low valued unit will extend back y4 or 40 feet into the lot. High street frontage, 50 ft. by 107.5% (120 feet depth) @ $3,000 equals .....................................$161,250 Low st. frontage, 50 feet by 64% (40 feet depth) @ $1,000 equals.............................................. 32,000 Lot value .......................................$193,250 When the two sides of a lot whose values must be merged, as above, are not of equal length, then add the length of the two sides together and divide by 2, thus obtaining the average length of the lot. Then proceed to merge value of the high and low units by using the average depth as the depth to be divided as shown above. H\qh Siraat »3 OOP & SO’ A o « o » - -B 0 1 fciooo Low Streat Fig. 514 1920 ASSESSMENTS — UNIT VALUE MAPS OF CLEVELAND, EAST CLEVELAND, LAKEWOOD AND THREE FRONTAGE CORNERS When a lot having a frontage of more than 100 feet on a high valued street and a frontage in the rear on a low valued street is bounded on one side by a street having a value between the high valued street and the low valued street, whose point of merge is MORE than 100 feet from the high valued street, you will proceed as follows: FIRST: Cut out a block (A BCD, Fig. 13) 100 feet each way from the corner (A) on a high valued street produce its value at the high unit (2,100); SECOND: Produce its value on the side street unit ($400) as corner influence; THIRD: Produce a point (F) in the depth (E H) of the lot where the high valued street and the low valued street will merge in value; deduct 100 feet (A B I J) from the full width (A E or H J) of the lot (A E H J); produce the value of the remainder (B E H I) of said width by multiplying the unit (2100) on the high valued street by the percentage given for the depth (E F) back to the merge point (F), by its width (B E); produce by the same method, the value given by using the rear unit ($250) and the depth (F H) back to the merge point (F) ; FOURTH: Deduct 100 feet in length (A D) from the full depth (A J) and use the remainder of depth (D J) as frontage on the side street; produce value for said frontage for a depth of 100 feet (I J) at the side unit ($400); FIFTH: For corner influence use a frontage of 100 feet (I J) on the rear or low valued ($250) street and the depth (D J) the same as used for frontage on the side value street. 1st—100 ft. x 100% (% for 100 ft. depth front value) @ $2,100.00 equals ...................................$210,000.00 2nd—100 ft. x 72 % (% for 100 ft. depth cor. infl.) @ $400.00 equals............................................... 28,800.00 3rd—3 ft. x 111.55% (% for 134 ft. depth front value) @ $2,100.00 equals ...................................' 7,028.00 3 ft. x 34.92% (% for 16 ft. depth rear value) @ $250.00 equals.................................................. 262.00 4th—50 ft. x 100% (% for 100 ft. depth side value) @ $400.00 equals................................................20,000.00 5th—100 ft. x 63% (% for 50 ft. depth cor. infl.) @ $250.00 equals............................................... 15,750.00 Lot Value .......................................$281,840.00 $2loo Straat $250 5\rzz\ Fig. 13 LOT LINES IRRELEVANT In calculating corner influence, assess the entire area within the 100 foot frontage on both the main and side streets irrespective of lot lines. Apply the frontage value on the main street and corner influ- ence from the side street in figuring the value of each lot. To illustrate: Fig. 14, A B C D parcel No. 1 and C D E F parcel No. 2 are within the corner in- fluence a'c the intersection of a $7,000 main street and $1,000 side street. The following equations make up the lot value of parcel No. 1: Frontage 100 ft. x 47.9% (% for 25 ft. depth) @ $7,000 front value............................................$335,300.00 Frontage 25 ft. x 72% (% when 100 ft. depth) @ $1,000 cor- ner influence ........................................ 18,000.00 Lot value .......................................$353,300.00 To find the value of parcel No. 2, first mark off the portion of the lot within the 100 foot corner influ- ence (C D H G). Produce it front value at the high unit $7,000 by multiplying the same by the number of feet in side (CD) parallel with main street and the percentage for depth (B G less B C or A H less A D —which makes 100 per cent (100 feet depth) less 47.9 per cent (25 feet depth) equals 52.1 per cent. Second: Figure the corner influence by using the above depth (D H) in feet (75) as frontage and the proper percentage (72%) for depth (C D). Third: Figure the balance of lot ( E F G H) as facing the side street. 1st—100 ft. x 52.10%: (% after deducting 25 ft. from 100 ft. front (value 100 ft. x 75 ft.) @ $7,000 equals....$364,700.00 2nd—75 ft. x 72% (% for 100 ft. depth, cor. infl. 75 ft. x 100 ft.) @ $1,000 equals ......................... 54,000.00 3rd—25 ft. x 100%r (% for 100 ft. depth side value 25 ft .x 100 ft. )@ $1,000 equals ......................... 25,000.00 Parcel No. 2 value ...............................$443,700.00 $7000 Straat B -t- fc loo' ^ ~ *1 s e V- <0 in o #2. ^ o o H is \ oo' % . vi1- & ■ Fig. 14 TRIANGLE ON TWO STREETS When a parcel of land has the formation of an acute angle, two long sides of which are bounded by different streets and the apex of which lies at the junction of the two streets, you will proceed as follows: Find the points (A and B, Fig. 15) about equi- distant on each side line from the apex (C) of the tri- angle where side lines will be intersected by a chord (A B) ten feet in length across said triangle; elimi- nate as unutilizable that part of the triangle (A B C) between the chord and the apex; merge the value (point G iy2 feet from A, and 2 feet from B) on the chord (A B) merge the value (point F 35.25 feet from E and 11.75 feet from D) on the full perpendicular depth (E D); connect these merge points (F and G) by a line (F G) and find the length of this line in feec (82.5) ; average the length of this line with the front- age on main street, 82.5 plus 90.28 -------------= 86.39 2 average the length of the depth (E F) on the perpen- dicular and the length of depth (A G) on the chord 35.25 plus 7.5 -----------= 21.37 2 Proceed to find the value of this presumed rectangle (86.39 feet x 21.37 feet) whose long side line (86.39 feet) is to the street, by multiplying the unit ($1,200) by the percentage (43.04%) representative of its depth (21.37 feet) by the length of the rectangle (86.39 feet). Proceed to find the value (of B D F G) and size of a presumed rectangle lying between the merge line (F G) and the line (B D) of the low valued street, and bounded at the ends by the perpendicular (D F) and the chord (B G) as in the former instance. Add the two results together for the value of the lot. (AEFG) average front 86,39 ft. x 43.04% (% for average depth 21.37 ft.) @ $1,200.00 equals................$ 44,620.00 (BDFG) average front 81.47 ft. x 19.33% (% for average depth 7.13 ft.) @ $400.00 equals................... 6,300.00 Value of lot ......................................$ 50,920.00 While the foregoing represents the proper tech- nical method of appraising such corner lots—a tri- angular lot with an acute angle on two streets—it may be stated in general that such corners, when the angle is very acute, may over-value the property. Indeed in many such cases the point for a consider- able distance is worthless, except for public use. Such cases may be so narrow as to preclude the pos- sibility of constructing a tenantible building and render necessary special consideration regardless of rule. THREE STREET FRONTAGE When a lot having a high value on the front, a lower value on the side street and a still lower value on a street in the rear, has such depth that the point of merge would be less than 100 feet from the high valued street, you will proceed as follows: Find the merge point (E); find the value of theCLEVELAND HEIGHTS, ILLUSTRATED AND EXPLAINED BY JOHN A. ZANGERLE, lot for its width (C D) on the high valued street at the unit of the high valued street by its depth (C E) to the merge point (E); find the value of the rear of the lot by using the number of feet between the merge point and the rear of the lot (E B) as frontage on the side street and for a depth equal to the frontage on the rear street (A B) by the unit of the side street. For corner influence on the front corner, find the value of the lot for a frontage on the side street (CE) at the side unit equal to the length from the cor- ner to the merge point by a depth (C D) equal to the width of the lot on the front street. For corner in- fluence on the front corner, find the value of the lot for frontage on the side street (C E) at the side unit equal to the length from the corner to the merge point by a depth (C D) equal to the width of the lot on the front street. For corner influence on the rear, find the value of the lot for its frontage on the rear street (A B) at the unit of the rear street and with a depth (B E) equal to the distance from the rear corner to the point of merge. 53.50 ft. x 98 3% ( %for 95 ft. depth, front value) @ $400.00 equals...................................................$ 21,036 00 96 ft. x 64.05% (%■ for 53.50 ft. depth, corner influence) @ $300.00 equals ........................................... 18,446.00 24 ft. x 75.12% (% for 53.50 ft. depth, side value) @ $300.00 equals....................................................... 5,408.00 53.50 ft. x 44.9% (% for 24 ft. depth, corner influence) @ $100.00 equals .............................................. 2,400.00 Lot value ...................................................$ 47,290.00 ft 100 SJraat A______J ft400 StTttat Fig. 16 When a parcel of land having a frontage of less than 100 feet, on a high valued street has a rear front- age on a low valued street and is bounded on one side by a street having a value between the high and low valued streets and where the depth of the lot is such that if the point of merge between the high valued frontage and low valued rear would be a point greater than 100 feet, from the high valued street, you will proceed as follows: FIRST: Produce the value of the lot for its full width (A B, Fig. 17) for a depth of 100 feet (B E) at the high unit; deduct 100 feet in depth from the total depth of the lot and use the re- mainder (C E) as frontage on the side street. SEC- OND : Produce the value of the rear of the lot for its frontage on the side street (C E) by its depth (C D) by the side unit; THIRD: For corner influence, pro- duce the value by using 100 feet as fronting on the side (BE) with a depth equal to the width of the lot on the main street (A B) by the side unit; produce the value using the frontage on the rear or low valued street (C D) by the depth of the lot back to a point 100 feet deep from the front of the lot (C E) by the rear or low valued unit. SEE EXAMPLE. 1st—52.16 ft. x 100% ((/c for 100 ft. depth, front value) @ $1,800.00 equals .......................................$ 93,890.00 2nd—50 ft. x 74.12% (% for 52.16 ft. depth, side value) @ $400.00 equals ......................................... 14,820.00 3rd—100 ft. x 63.65% (% for 52.16 ft. depth, corner influ- ence) @ $400.00 equals ...................................... 25,460.00 52.16 ft. x 63% (% for 50 depth, corner influence) @ $200.00 equals..................................................... 6,570.00 Lot value ..................................................$140,740.00 *1800 Street to o o ’'T $200 Street Fig. 17 GRADED UNITS When a lot having a frontage of more than 100 feet on a high valued street is of a depth of 500 or 600 feet along the side street, whose unit values grade away after passing a point 200 feet back from the front of the lot, and when it has a rear fronting on a very low valued street, you will proceed as fol- lows: Find the merge point (E) between the high and the low value; find the value of the lot (No. 1) for a frontage (B H) and a depth of 100 feet (B J) at the unit ($900.00) of the high valued street. For corner influence, find the value of the parcel having 100 feet frontage (B J) on the side street using a unit of the first 200 feet and for a depth of 100 feet ( BH). Cut the remainder of the lot into parcels (No. 2 to No. 7 inclusive) each having 100 feet frontage on the side street, and having a depth of 100 feet. Find the value of each of these portions or parcels as inside lots facing on the side street, using the unit as scaled down that would apply to each particular portion. For corner influence in the rear, find the value of the parcel having 100 feet front on the rear street (C G) at the unit ($50.00) for that street for a depth (C K) of 100 feet. Where the values are under $200 see $50Sflwt AUDITOR 15 semi-business table for corner influence. Produce the value of the remainder (A D G H) by multiplying the unit oil the high valued street by the percentage given for the depth (A E) back to the merge point (E), by its width (A H); produce by the same method, the value given by using the rear unit and the depth (D E) back to the merge point (E). *60X9*125 5tT IE , 700' 8I GO O CD an Fig. 18 Lot No. 1—100 ft. x 100% (% for 100 ft. depth, front value) @ $900.00 equals ...........................................$ 90,000.00 Lot No. 1—100 ft. x 72% (% for 100 ft. depth, corner influ- ence) @ $125.00 equals........................................... 9,000.00 Lot No. 2—100 ft. x 100% (% for 100 ft. depth, front value) @ $125.00 equals ............................................ 12,500.00 Lot No. 3—100 ft. x 100% (% for 100 ft. depth, front value) @ $100.00 equals ............................................ 10,000.00 Lot No. 4—100 ft. x 100% (% for 100 ft. depth, front value) @ $90.00 equals .............................................. 9,000.00 Lot No. 5—100 ft. x 100% (% for 100 ft. depth, front value) @ $80.00 equals .............................................. 8,000.00 Lot No. 6—100 ft. x 1C0% (% for 100 ft. depth, front value) @ $70.00 equals .............................................. 7,000.00 Lot No. 7—100 ft. x 100% (% for 100 ft. depth, front value) @ $60.00 equals .............................................. 6,000.00 Lot No. 7—100 ft. x 30% of 72(/c (corner influence when 100 ft. deep and high unit $60.00) @ $50.00 equals.............. 1,080.00 Lot No. 8—20 ft. x 141.8% (7c for 663 ft. depth, front value) @ $900.00 equals ............................................ 25,520.00 Lot No. 9—20 ft. x 61.25% (% for 37 ft. depth, front value) @ $50.00 equals ................................................ 610.00 Total land value ......................$178,710.00 INSIDE LOTS AFFECTED BY CORNER INVASIONS When an inside lot, carrying a part of the corner influence, is at a different angle from the corner lot, you will proceed as follows: Cut from the inside lots (Parcels No. 1 and No. 2, Fig. 19) such portion as will make the complete 100 foot square, (A B E F) for corner influence. Then find the value of the inside lot (No. 1 I K L M) on its front unit. Then create a parallelogram (A G H I) whose width (A I) is the difference between (100 feet) corner influence and (75 feet) the distance from the corner (F) to the point (I) of the beginning of the lot (No. 1). The depth (A G) of the parallelogram (A G H I) is the distance from a point (A) where the line ( AB) of the paral- lelogram (A B E F) intersects at (G) the lot line (I K). Then find the corner influence of the paral- lelogram (A G H I) one-half of which will be the corner influence of the lot (No. 1). VALUE OF PARCEL NO. 1 50 ft. x 100% (% for 100 ft. depth, front value) @ $400.00-$20,000.00 45 ft. x one-half of 3% (% for 100 ft.—75 ft. depth, corner influence) @ $200.00 equals ......................... 140.00 Value of Lot No. 1 ..................................$20,140.00 In Fig. No. 19 we also have lot No. 2. To calcu- late its value proceed according to the above rule.16 1920 ASSESSMENTS —UNIT VALUE MAPS OF CLEVELAND, EAST CLEVELAND, LAKEWOOD AND First, find its front value, $12,000. Then add the value $1,130 for corner influence A B C on parcel and subtract $140, the value of the corner influence A G I, which portion was charged to Lot No. 1. 640' I4-S.3S for firsT TOOft i.aoefofornaxT lOOfv • €>Q ^af-ov Y\(LXT ZLQl* i<44,75 f*f or TCtf&J 840^1- Fig. 20 " o3 tgJ= *lD VALUE OF PARCEL NO. 2 30 ft. x 100% (% for 100 ft. depth, front value) @ $400.00. . .$12,000.00 100 ft. x one-half of 11.3% (% for 100 ft.—45 ft. depth for corner influence) @ $200.00 equals ......................... 1,130.00 $13,130.00 Less above triangle A I G: 45 ft. x one-half of 3% (% for 100 ft., 75 ft. depth, corner influence) @ $200.00 equals ................................ 140.00 Value Lot No. 2 ............................................$12,990.00 Fig. 19 SOMERS CURVE EXTENDED Sometimes it is necessary to figure the value of an inside lot that is over 700 feet deep. If the width, shape and location is such that it could not be laid out into an allotment (Fig. 20), you will produce its value by extending the percentage of the Somers’ curve; in other words, add the per cent for each 100 feet or part of 100 feet that is added for the same number of feet between the 700 and 600 feet depths. According to the table 140.55 is the percentage for 600 feet and 142.35 for 700 feet depth. The difference between these percents equals 1.8 per cent; this amount is to be added to the percentage for 700 feet for each ad- ditional 100 feet in depth, making 800 feet 144.15 per cent, 900 feet 145.95 per cent, etc. If the added depth is only part of 100 feet it takes an added percentage equivalent to the percentage for the same number of feet last shown on the table, figuring back from 700 feet. For 10 feet add 0.15 per cent, for 20 feet add 0.03 per cent, etc. See Fig. 20. Front 50 ft. x 144.75% (840 ft, depth) @ $50 equals $3,620 total value. If the parcel of land has the proper shape and location (Fig. 21) for an allotment, you will lay out imaginary streets and lots abutting thereon suitable to the neighborhood; fix proper units for the imag- inary streets; compute the value of lots facing on said streets and add the total value of all the lots to get the true value of the entire parcel. See Fig. 21. Front on established street, 100 x 100% (100 ft. depth) @ $25.00 equals ................................$ 2,500.00 Front on imaginary street, 800 x 100% (100 ft. depth) @ $15.00 equals ................................ 12,000.00 Fig. 21—Total Land Value .....................$14,500.00 io§ Wi- § a’ b£> o 2-c 2-g u < t u rt .s s« O 3 >* .2 > * d* .s fe U CL CO rt s 70c •g it 6 d* .5 « I04 CO CtJ S $1.20 to $1.40 Owing to variations in size of buildings and in style and quality of fixtures, the items of plumbing, heating, elevators and lighting should be added in total amounts to cost of building.CLEVELAND HEIGHTS, ILLUSTRATED AND EXPLAINED BY JOHN A. ZANGERLE, COUNTY AUDITOR 27 SCHEDULE 1 The following is the blank form used by the field men for describing the improvement, the field men being required to check each item describing the building. PROPOSEP UNIT VALUES FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT. UNITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PERTH. APP 3°s% FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH 1522% FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH 191*% FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH 222?% FOR ZOO FEET IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. PI5TRICT 7 EAST200 2.Z5 400 600 1Q(DISTRICT fA5T •"STRICT 4 W£st OHIO' PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 192.0 ASSESSMENT. UNITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OFIOo'FEET PEPTH APP 92?% FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH 15 —% FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH 1 9\*°/oFOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH 22?5% FOR ZOO FEET IN DEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS-PI STRICT 5 EAST rtTVEU/y/> OHIO PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 1320 ASSESSMENT. UNITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PEPTH. APP 9°J% FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH 15 25% FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH l9!i % FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH 222?% FOR 200 FEET IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS 1 . \ i ^ r i o i 2DISTRICT 6 EAST CV-tVE LA/yp PI 5 T R I CT E A 5TDISTRICT I |_J I E\ \55j ISL /*. vs./■» M EAST PI STRICT 7 EAST c\tVELA/yp U OHIO PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT. UNITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PEPTH- APP 3<2Se/o FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH )5«2% FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH l9lA»/<, FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH 22*?% FOR 200 FEET IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. PI STRICT 8 EAST CHANGES . 73rd St. between St. Clair Ave. and Bittern Ave . 75th St. between St. Clair Ave. and Bittern Ave. . 76th St. between St. Clair Ave. and Bittern Ave. $35 to $45 $35 to $45 $35 to $50DISTRICT l' EA5T DISTRICT PISTRICT 8 EAST o (—n o PROPOSED UNIT VALUE’S FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT UNITS ARE FOR STANDARD LOTS OF 100 FEET DEPTH. APP 9°5% FOR 125 FEET IN DEPTH 159p% FOR 150 FEETINPEPTH I9H% FOR 175 FEET IN DEPTH 229°% FOR 200 FEET IN DEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. FI5TRI CT E-A5T CHANGES E. 79th St. between St. Clair and R. R...$45 to $60 E. 82nd St. between St. Clair and R. R...$40 to $50 Superior at E. 101st.....................$150 to $200 Superior at E. 102nd ....................$200 to $250P l>STR \ CT II LAST PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR ASSESSMENT UNITS ARE FOR STANDARD LOTS OF IOO FEET PEPTH. A»P 99§% FOR 125 FEET IN DEPTH 152*% FOR 150 FEET IN DEPTH |9!f 7# FOR /75 FEET IN DEPTH 222S% FOR 200 FEET |N DEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. V STRICT 16 EASTPI STRICT IZ EAST DISTRICT 10 EAST ^\,£VEL4/ty> OH I O PROPOSE? UNIT VALUES FOR I9ZL0 ASSESSMENT. UNITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PEPTH- APP 9*2% FOR I£5 FEET IN PEPTH I5*%> FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH |9J4% FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH 22*% FOR 200 FEET IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS P I ST Rl GT 3 EAST _____________IlJ /Jfi /Ja /JS 2aa 2SS 2& J.CW /7S SO# 3?S 32SZif-2Sa /&>-/&> 3&-J3S 3S0 E.5TST 2£0_ Afi>_ /00 E.59 51 E.5SFL. ?o 300 /So / E.bl5T m m 2*0 % HEJ55T FC6ST. 7S iS iS-7e-£f so es F&SPL. EJOST E.70ST Tfi iS SO sa 5 SS Js JS F.7I.ST E. 71 5T E 71 ST J~o (O ~/2S /So ££*f 2JS-2ao-/zr O fE73PL. E.76ST 1 E77ST E.775T E.79 ST E 79 ST 7S-/as>T2r /j-0 sjf' /JS /00 St?## tMSTRIGT 7 EASTDISTRICT 10 EAST ___^ nWADE park AV HE. DISTRICT 8 EAST **_&L_6ci r/o j/o //o /$o ffilRQSEAV WADE PARK //o /10/ZS so TORY AV I., \ WHITETHORN ¥1 <50_______60 \l IMWMP W 40 40 f BLAINE AV / ss JS KFNMORE AV /*,/ <40 1 HEk\V\Aji/ 40 Vk —-—7 A co DISTRICT II EAST r\,e.VEM/y^ V OH I o PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT. UNITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PEPTH. APP 393% FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH USE*. POR 150 FEET IN PEPTH I2!4% FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH 22£?% FOR 200 FEET IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS P I 5TR ICTUUUUUUl h 01 < UJ DISTRICT 12 EAST ^ OHIO PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 192.0 ASSESSMENT UNITS ARE POR STANDARD LOTS OP 100 FEET DfPTN APP POR 125 FEET in DEPTH 15 2?% POR 150 FEET IN DEPTH I9ii% POR 175 FEET IN DEPTH 22^% POR 200 FEET IN DEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS V I 5 T R I CT EAST DISTRICT EAST DISTRICT 13 EASTStrict 14 east PISTRICT 13 EAST o i—11 © PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT. UNITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET DEPTH APP 9°S% FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH IS^7o FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH I 9'S%FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH 222?”/. FOR 200 FEET IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. PI ST R I CT II EASTDistrict 6 east PI5TR/CT hr S (>S SO 4S ..20 S or\ FUI1FRT0N ZS 2S 5 ay o.L^_j 25 ' • RFRTRUDE fcv s AV S.E. I 2S ZS 2S HD.LMER c2- AV. JLLJ ;c ZS ZS —| lANSINfi uJ' 5 AV. SXJ So ^ *0 1 50 45 1—; u| . . _ _ . — > , a \ i r> 4 30 ZS ZS ' GAYLORD AV. S.E. So So So LOa PRATT <*>- AV S.E Lui fH if o T CT3 uj S.E. DISTRICT 15 EAST r\_t,VEL4/y^ OH I o PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 192.0 ASSESSMENT UNITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PEPTH. APP 3°?% FOR |25 FEET IN PEPTH 15— % FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH 1915% FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH 222-“% FOR 200 FEET IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. 1 IS £ l WAR AV. S.E. /?, ,J5 / LO‘ C_Q GRANT AV. S.E./^r 1 V2r~ - - • H51 J1 CUYAH06A HEIGHTS VILLAGE U-Jl 1JFFFRIFS AV. V VINEYARD AV. ^ 2o VINFYARP ~----------“------- %7ROSFWOOD i47v c r \v-\ ROSEWOOD AV\ \ ROSEWOOD AV. ~ HUoLWUUU cx^ LAV.------------------------------_Lt------------A ,5 jo______________________/o ' /O BANCROFT AV 7 v BANCROFT ______71 AV. S.L ,2. 1°_________________L2_ 7n/ grand division ^ 5.E. S A GARFIELP HEIGHTS VILLAGE. GARFIELP HEIGHTS VILLAGE PI5TRICT 19 EASTDISTRICT 16 EAST C,L t-VEU/y^ ©Ml O PROPOSEP UNIT VALUE5 FOR 1320 ASS ESS M E NT. UNITS 4RB FOR STANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PEPTH. APP FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH. FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH 1914 «/«, FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH. 22**°/' FOR 200 FEET IN PEPTH. SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. P I S T R I CT EASTPISTRICT 9 EAST PISTRICT 16 EAST DISTRICT 3 [Si 1| 5 slsEESS lw W¥j /IB £ E.IZ7 L [30 ST E.I3I ST L 131 ST/ TI31 SI I 1 Aca pers FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH 19 14% FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH 22.22% FOR ZOO FEET IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERSDISTRICT 18-A EAST (A,E.VEL/A/y^ V OHIO PROPOSEP UNIT VALUES FOR 1920 ASSES5MENT. UNITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OF IOO FEET PEPTH. APP 92 ?%FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH 1525% for ISO FEET IN PEPTH IPWo/o FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH 22 2?“*. FOR 200 FEET IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS.DISTRICT 18-B EAST PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 192.0 ASSESSMENT- UNIT S ARE FOR STANDARD LOTS OF 100 PEPTH. APP 92#% FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH I52S% FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH 19140/, for 17SFEET IN PEPTH ZL°S°/. FOR 200 FEET IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR 0THER5.PJ5TRICT 14 EAST DISTRICT 15 EAST P15 TJU CT ZO EA5T T~H~ W£7~ TTSBFMEE 1 1 10 pi to 0\ CORLETT . 5 > ^1 -5.E. ELIZABETH mmnL\—m " 10 pT NELSON AV = 10 -i---POVE POVEl _ ~ j IS is 3ir^nuLuiAj_ IS IS 15- r° k. ^LENECRAVE S F 3 AV N rn O K 15 12 12 15 ^f 3S4 MOLLEN F3 AV — HORNER AV ’ ”1 rn ip: 15 jz - -O 1 LOATH AV ir IS IZ r- 1 m - - 1 . uc AULCASH AV. IS ni - 1 APelside 1 1 AV 1 1 ~f~ WENPT ^AV iz ^ WATTERSON 1_J PURHEE PRINCETON 15 \|- 1/ PUTNAM M IS* par S IZ 16 BENWOOP AV JO 10 CRENNELL AV \0 10 HARVARP AV 10 12 15 18 20 20 m h c ^ FERRIS 2o 20 nO In uo c >^MARSTON 20 20 0 “ H 25* p*r S^.Ft- ^BENWOOP 25 CRENNELL ^—> HARVARP ROBERTSON ‘.mruL )&0o pa /?cr«. 2o 20 -J JESSE 5 AV. ie> \e BAXTER c - 1 AV KJ N -42 fQ B£< Mop 22 J [BEAGHWOOP > X) nn 2 Ln C H HO DISTRICT 19 EAST r,V-tVELA/V/> om o PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT ♦ITS ARE FOR STANDARD LOTS OFIOO FEET PEPTW. ADD 9*25% FOR IZS FEET IN DEPTH I 5^%FOR 150 FEET IN DEPTH 1914% FOR 175 FEET IN DEPTH 22 —% FOR 200 FEET IN DEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. GARFIELP HEIGHTS VILLA6FDISTRICT Z0 EAST r \X-V E LA /y/> V OHIO PROPOSEP UNIT VALUES FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT. UNITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PEPTH. APP 9°J% FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH I5«% POR IJO FEET IN PEPTH I 9£eloFOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH ZZXJ. FOR ZOO FEET IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. S TR I CT fA5T J LJ U Lm ABElL CARTON AV. ^ FULLER EASTON M MARAH fLLIOT AV r HEATH SS -4a 4S S'o BENHAM KEXFORP o is Q C.RAVFN BARTLETT 12^QR5VEC CORLETT P l 3TRICT 19 E A S r. rEAST VIEW VI LLA 6 EP/STRICT 21 EAST 0\,t VEU/y^ CUV£l4ltl> o> m m cr -o Z 30 Zj o d 3 >. > fn 5 £ ^ ra m c ™ K « 5 ^ 2 5 * IS 5 18 $ * "! £ ^ * * 5» 55 5 >33522- j x 3 s 2 o >< Oi ro ^ ^ g ° °> ° 5 5 Ft C/> Lo 4 r~ : H —1 n 5 SIGNET _lir _ LORENZ AV AV pH rn C3 (8 Ni Cy> / _ 7J> 1 1 r IN) £3 \S P3 133 .*—I P I5TR I CT EAST CHANGES E. 127th St. between Woodland and Shaker Blvd.$45 to $40 E. 128th St. between Woodland and Shaker Blvd.$45 to $40 E. 130th St. between Woodland and Shaker Blvd.$45 to $40 Moreland Circle...............................$30 to $75 SHAKER HEI6HTS VILL.DISTRICT 22 EAST rv^VEM/y^ v OHIO PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 192.0 ASSESSMENT. UNITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PERTH APP 995% FOR 12S FEET IN PEPTH 15a?0/. FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH 19!*% FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH 2222% FOR 200 FEET IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. PISTRKT ZZ EA ST DISTRICT 23 EAST 0\,£VEL4/y* PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT. UNITS ARE FOR STANDARD LOTS OF 100 FEET DEPTH. ADD 9°*% FOR 125 FEET IN DEPTH. LLA6E. E U C L I P 1522% FOR ISO I9\±i» FOR 175 FEET IN DEPTH 2222% FOR 200 FEETINPEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS- CHANGES Property on N. Y. C. & St. L. R. R. $5,000 per acre to 15c per sq. ft. E. 200th St. between Mohican to Cherokee...$ 8 to $15 E. 200th St. between Cherokee to Pawnee....$10 to $15DISTRICT 24 EAST ^Y.tVEL4/V/> OH I O PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 1920 ASSESSNENT. UNITS ARE FOR STANDARD LOTS OFIOO FEET DEPTH. ADD 92#% FOR 125 IN PEPTH 15^% FOR 150 FEET IN DEPTH 1915% FOR 175 FEET IN DEPTH 222 s%FOR ZOO T IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. EAST CLEVELANPWARREN5VILLE PI STRICT 25 EAST r\.tVEL/A/y'/) >J OHIO PROPOSEP UNIT VALUES FOR 1920ASSESSMENT. UNITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PEPTH APP 9°J% FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH I 527,FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH I9!i% FOR ITS FEET IN PEPTH Zltso/o FOR 200 FEET IN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS EAST ^□42 517 ^ no E.I44 51 140 WARRENSVILLE 51 IzJ TJ LJ EAST VIEW VILLAGE DISTRICT EAST 140 SI \2- E. 142 5T 1 T a 8 10 IZ- 15 F8 3 E. 143 5T \\k a 3 10 i 'Z 15 IS IE. 1 —1 144 St 15 10 10 10 IZ 15 18 1 E. Lu o 146 n 51 LU 5 18 IB 18 2o ZO E. o 147 4 5T £1 18 18 IQ 20 20 E. E i 149 SI C^i C£1 * 8 8 IS 18 ZO o E. 151 n ST f 12 15 18 20 | E. ! 153 i- 4 ST i *| IZ IZ IZ 15 la E. o 154 nJ ST o IZ IZ IZ 15 la [S 2o\ _E. 143 ST I& 16 1 E. 145 51 §1 is 16 IZ. E. 146 ST 18 1 1 " lE. 147 ST 3 18 10 IZ F. 149 sr4^' IS /6 I ? T/ EAST VIEW VILLAGE zsj Z5\ r ‘3 SHAKER HEIGHTS VILLAGEC ITY P/STRICT 1WE5T r\,£lVEL4/y£) W OHIO PROPOSEP UlilT VALUES 1920 ASSESSMENT UNITS ARE FOR 5TANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PEPTH APP 9^%F0R 125 FEET IN PEPTH. 152-°% FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH. 19* %FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH. ZZ°-?% FOR ZOOFEET IN PEPTH. SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. P aR* LOCUST] ft) 7^7 franklin 7S 7S 70 4s!T PI STRICT 5 WEST DISTRICT 2 WESTPI5TRICT 2 WEST QY.tVE.L4/v25 OM ' O PR0P05IV UNIT VALUES TOT? VD20 ASSESSMENT UNITS ARE FOR 5TANPARP LOTS OF 100 FELT PERTH APP 9°-s % FOR I75FEET IN DEPTH. )5°? % FOR 150FEET IN PEPTH. 13 If °/<, FOR 175FEET IN PEPTH. 22°-8 %FOR200FEET IN PERTH. SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. S- <0 (M 5: h 5 f- n D I STRICT DISTRICT 3 WE5TDISTRICT 3 WEST kV-E-VEU/y# ^ OHIO PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR I920ASSESSMENT UNITS ARE FOR STANDARD LOTS OF FEET IN OEFTH ADD 92?% FOR 125 FEET IN DEPTH ^ 15 2? % FOR 150 FEET IN DEPTH \ 19* % FOR 175 FEET IN DEPTH ^ 22—7° FOR 200 FEET IN DEPTH O SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS ^ DISTRICT 7 WEST.PI5TRICT 10 WE5T DISTRICT______unison u h~ o I M W I Pl5r I' ffil) U BSDim 45 SO 55 80 70 & & DC £ o 00 i— OO 1— SflU 50 o| Ip 27 27 00 cvi MBlb 26 CT> 00 Tommv. 26 N CVJ 85 DISTRICT WEST 25 25 25 n n co t\J £ H <0 o O o te UJ - 3s > *n I3 w C\J 60 K DISTRICT 5 WEST r\.£VELAA/@ ^ OHSO PROPOSED UNIT VflLUE-5 FOR 1920 4.SSES5MENT UNITS ARE FOR 5TANPARI7 LOTS OF 100 FEET PERTH /IDD 9-% FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH 15s2% FOR 150FEET IN PEPTH I92io/o poRI75 FEET IN PEPTH 2252% FOR200FEETIM PfrPTH see e-xplanation FOR OTHERS ^[/ o r 40 t 4S *7 18 Z5 ^ ■ —j 18 n & AV. S.W.^ 28 n 0~ s.w PI STRICT 6 WESTDISTRICT WEST d i_____I i_____1 i 50 H HJ £ in i- X h- cO PISTPICT 6 WE5T r\, VJlLAfyp OHIO PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 1920ASSESSMENT UNITS ARE FOR STANDARD LOTS OF 100 FEET DEPTH ADD 9^5%F0R 125 FEET IN DEPTH 15^ % FOR 150 FEET IN DEPTH. 19 If % FOR 175 FEET IN DEPTH. 22°-°%FOR200FEETIN DEPTH. SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. 30 30 35 n n n n nr m m n n m n n DISTRICT WEST PI5TRICT 77 7 WESTPI STRICT 6 WEST PI STRICT WEST C y £/ U TTcT__—^'V ^GegaTsw/ r 30 [ wade / Iav 3W ■§/ f 30 <5? [2 1o o C\J Hr CO 10 CM Cl i r\ ELOUD 15 FRIH l5. i30AV. S.W. 30i 15 15 25 25 4S_A5 Itol lflWKFL.ll/ r ’^P 20________ 20 L ~______20 Ml THEM AV/i? 20 25 25 Sr k °o Au /flT DISTRICT 7 WEST rvTVEU/y/} N-' OHIO PROPOSED UNIT VALUE-S FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT. UN ITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OFlOO FEET PERTH APP9&% FOR 125 FEET in PEPTH 15 22 ^ FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH I3H % FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH ZZ<*% FOR 200 FEET 1M PEPTH 5EE EXPLAHATIOn FOROTHER5 PISTRICT 10 WESTPISTRICT 8 WEST ^tVELA/y^ w OHIO PR0P05EP UNIT VALUES FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT UNITS ARE FOR 5TANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PEPTH APP 9 5# %F0R 125 FEET IN PEPTH. I5 % EAST PART OP DISTRICT 11 WEST ^\,tVELA/yp OHIO PROPOSER uniT l/ALUES FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT UtlITS ARE FOR STAdPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PE PTH APP 9— % FOR 125 FEET Id PEPTH 15 22% fOR 150 FEET Id PEPTH 19* % FOR 175 FEET IH PEPTH 22“%F0R 200FEETlf1 PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS > mTyvTpw^ z io 18 YAtreapway >\ ZZ zo ~| p1j ITAM PA -1 12 BROOKLYM HEIGHTS VILLAGE BWEST PART OF DISTRICT 11 WEST f\,tVE LA/vp OHIO PROPOSE? UtllT VALUES FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT UNITS ARE FOR 5TANPARP LOTS OF IOOFEET PERTH APP 9^% FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH. I5°?%F0R 150FEET IN PEPTH. 1914 7. FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH. 22 7° %F0R200FEETIN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS 5 A A 0^3 DISTRICT 9 WE5T BROOKS) PE PARK 3000 PER ^cre h- lU bE 1— LO MtmsIsN HENRITZE £ AV. ^ 25 c^Jr— 7 * 28 32 g 1 SPOKANE ^ AV A% 30 35 BROOKLYN ^ / / AY A?/ WOBURM mZ*M 'bucyrus U iARPNQRE 10 16 8 AV- , “IT^/H f1QBi£g| 25 25 2LV A ISEARSPALE av yV 25 25 25 . ^ \ 1 ROANOKE AV. 0)'A 25 25 1 MONTCLAIR i—i i—i __ AIX. 23 23 o 20 18 ■behrwalpI 10 10 16 GIFF0RP 2 15 WICHITA to ■sf 2 3S 3: 8 _________ CO " HUDLL-T r-------------fHJdrrH r----- _________ W7&/50*5aFT I TATE N 0-1_______________ _____20 /LEOPOLD 1 LI __________________r—, «_________ AvTsv-^______________H, ? UliBY____AWgl 0 i HOOP -----a VPAWNING MM20__________dOoL *--------- C^/ ffrmA av S3^5 ---f. /4o__________________18 £ I TAMPA ^ --&/4L % *> BIPPULPH /* DISTRICT 14 WEST EA5T PART II WEST OP RIVERWEST PARK VILLAGE ro F3 w. m Z30 d in X W 20 > > z: > i— m cn cn LINNET cn 117 ~~n cz> 7XD —1 c: z: m HZ oS 05 1 ST MARK 00 Oo 22 iSi Zn ZJ\ oo > :> > 3> < < < < Co (/> Oo Ln ro 5 U* Cn W. 05 117 \ G *< ro ro i— o c— z: r-n —1 —i rH -< > > > < ro ro < ro cn w 20_ cn 18 18 15 ^ 115 cn r= 5T 18 18 15 S 114 1 c-t- ^ 5T 10 18 15 112 3x a 18 18 15 ■■*= Ml ^ 5T 18 18 15 5T. _ I0 30t 5q. Pt L.5.&.M 5. RY. m 35* Sq Pt I06T-H T9S 4©zf 103 ST. Cn iED L -ST ST LS c " 20 _ ----icn r DISTRICT 5 WEST DISTRICT 12 WEST k\,£VEL Atyp w OI-MO PROPOSEDUNIT VALUF5 FOR 192.0 ASSESSMENT UNITS ARE FOR. STAMPARPLOTS OF 100 FEET PfrPTH A PP 3s5 %FOR 125 FEET IN PE PTH I5“* FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH 19^% FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH 22—% FOR ZOO FEET IN PEPTH 5EEEXPLANATION FOR OTHERS lD\b!9l 6BROOKLYN TOWNSHIP PISTRICT II WEST 48 rfe w J |_53 bj V - L_> DC 20 dj CO ST £0 >- Cb c ST £ 18“ u §1 00 o; 5T 12 u ol sS CL PARK RP 1 10 12 0= o u_ ii- tS 3' X CL h- to UJ cj> &= K on u g< 2 s PISTRICT 13 WEST OHIO PR0P05EP UNIT VALUE5 TOR 1920 ASSESSMENT UNITS ARE EOR STANPARP LOTS OE100 EEET PEPTH APP 92-s % EOR 125 EEET IM PEPTH 15 25% f-0R 150 EEET lh PEPTH I9i* °/0 EOR 175 EEET IN PEPTH 22- % EOR £.00EEETIN PEPTH SEE EXPLANATION EOR OTHERST PI5TRICT14 WEST rv£.VELA/V/5 OHIO PR0R05ED UNIT VALUES FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT UNITS ARE FOR STANPARP LOTS OF 100 FEET PEPTH. APP 9»% FOR 125 FEET IN PEPTH. 15 - % FOR 150 FEET IN PEPTH. 19* % FOR 175 FEET IN PEPTH. 22 2° %FQR200FEET IN PEPTH. SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTH ERS. TAMPA& asm* m 81*181?, m 3 3333 £ 33503033 omoCn — -htititi <5 mmmrn z rnrnmm t? HH-H 0 oaDD —i mmmm 1 TO3 5 xxxx50UTH OHIO PROPOSED UNIT VALUES FOR 1920 ASSESSMENT UNITSARE FOR STANDARD LOTS OF 100 FEET DEPTH. APP FOR 125 FEET IN DEPTH 15®®% FOR 150 FEET IN DEPTH 1FOR 175 FEET IN DEPTH Zl^fo FOR 200 FEET IN DEPTH SEE EXPLANATION FOR OTHERS. Irlr ^2 58 8 ^ ^ ^ - i^N) ^ N S'I- feS $ & 5| l^-l g: S4.§- $s=% I- _^l ^ >. $/ * \1 ^ v>; ^ l^^vk A & &S its &§ + itlti JYAJYAIfA AY. /A /a « !B 20 22 WYATTDOTT& ^ AK^J 14. /6 20 23-. BZZBUE AY^J JA !6 18 20 i ZBWZJ AY. /A n 18 20 22 CEBZTBBZA2IZ AY JA J7 20 22 WATBBBUBY YD. 14 / 7 /8 20 AD CZABBN ZB\ /A n /8 -AO >y PABKJYOOB 22 23 WYAizDorm AY 27 AY. 1 ' 27 27 27 27 30 32 Vbzibub 1 AY. 1 .30 DO 32 35 4-0 40 ^ WATBBBUBY <6r^ i§ CLABSACB 11 ^zj{ 7fi 30 30 3/ 34 35 — GBACB 1 1 ayL 76 30 30 31 34- 35 »t COBA65ET ] l dzj.ftl 26 30 33 35 4-OM AZABDA 1 1 AKJJ 23 28 30 35 35 W ZAYBWOOD 1 1 -*tdM 22 23 25 26 30 C^p AY 38 30 60>15^ 60 AY. J BB ^iS^ra&jrn AY. I ■23 30 & ~Yr kr&CAS ABELL EOLN1YOON MEB7WOQD_ iP\ ASTN EEYBELY JK .._30_ 3S ^ .50 35 30 AO 35 30 50 40 35 MAszomt M. YSMAELOWB LINCOLN V 25 BAXTBBLY AY 40 35 fa N -^JYL^Tc 'I || t !■£> 72 0i / o 2 O Z2 1 — — 4 I-- —1 IP k_ Q> wmroN_ 25 ZAU£&E£aL&_ 23.___ 1 EX4GA.B AV. .So X WOODFAOAD 30 32 AY. , <5EAtf6£g ' £oirm£ ZE K VIEW AY. & 33 30 sj- x, § AJjWAEZ) w h ! AY. 33 30 S3 ^£0 _£THEL AY V AY. BALL l$l e/osthlan 1 r~Jo~' 3 A____ \W££7ZAE£ AY 33 Jj o AY. ^c&mYcgj) AY. T i "TT aML CO/INfrTflAl I I______m 77 /tw/vsmE\ pRomio unit MLuhm unm a n roi? standard ' orb of too mr 0(pth ADD 9«y. FOR it 5 FLH in Of PTH I5<^°/oF0R 150 f[U IN 0£P7H Id ^ % FOR 175 W itiUFTH il°s •/. FOR ZOO Fill l N Of PTH 3ff tinmTiDN FOR 0THEf?5 i PARKUhll m V as- y i—i r-fliffiSII® I':' "W' .v®