Eastham said he would

Eastham said he would have supported the appointments of all five members of the Equalization Board. "But they’re way out of line on the price of things.” He said he thought Hall made fair assessments and in his case, even drove around with him over the Eastham farm before setting values on the property. But in changing Hall’s figures. Eastham said. the Equalization Board members . were "front porch assessors.” * “I’m glad to hear you say that Mr. Hall did a good job,” Estes interjected, emphasizing that the supervisors can't throw out the figures, set by the professional appraiser. If there’s dissatisfaction among landowners who’ve tried to have changes made in those figures, Estes suggested that Fletcher and the rest bring suit in circuit court against the Equalization Board.

Unequal Values

From Hall

“Some land is sold for too high a price,” Eastham interjected, challenging the use of comparable sales figures. “Sometimes you get two fools—one that will ask it and another that will give it!”

Henry Hudson reported that a parcel of agriculturally zoned land near Woodville on Route 522 was valued at SI,200 an acre while a similar piece of property on Route 626 near Washington was valued at S2.000 an acre. "How come land in Washington is worth almost twice as much as land in Woodville?” he asked.

Robert Eastham maintained that the “whole mess” was the result of the supervisors’ decision to have an appraiser work alone instead of with a local board of assessors as has been the practice in the past. "After it's nailed to the wall, then all the fighting starts” with review by the Equalization Board, he said.

“It seems as if most of the dissatisfaction is with the Equalization Board, not with Mr. Hall,” Latham said, then it's logical to assume that if the local reassessment officials had worked with Hall from the outset, dissatisfaction would have been even greater, he added.

Robert Eastham acknowledged that the supervisors can't legally