Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 6 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
newcomver * a successtul businessman, reported to me that he was greeted with: “Well! What’s YOUR complaint, Mr. X?" in a tone that suggested he was being unreasonable even to be there appealing. Others have reported great rudeness and curtness by some certain board members. This is inexcusable.
At the June 7 public hearing on the tax rate, Mrs. Helen Kilby raised the issue of the Equalization Board's failure to review and balance all assessment cards, whether a complaint is made ornot. Equalization Board Chairman H. S. Barksdale was stated that there were instructed by Fred Forberg not to make a countywide reassessment but only to review appeals and neighboring properties.
David Jordan, Appraisal Supervisor with the Virginia Department of Taxation in Richmond, confirmed this week in a telephone interview that the Board's job was not to make a reassessment but to correct known errors. However, he said, the Board is under no restriction only to review appeals and neighboring lands. It has been merely a matter of practice, he said, for boards to handle only appeals. There is no property barred from their consideration, he added, should they choose to widen their review.
The problem of a blanket approach arose in the 1930 case of Taylor v. Lynchburg. Interestingly, the 1929-30 falling economy figured prominently in the case. After a 1929 general reassessment of all Lynchburg real estate, a board of equalization reviewed and changed 130-40 assessments.
The 1929-30 crash and depression was so devastating that 1929 assessments suddenly were unfair and actually higher than the fair market value of the county by the end of the 1930. On December 30, the Equalization Board ordered a 20 percent uniform reduction of all assessments. The Lynchburg Commissioner of Revenue, Taylor, held this to be an illegal action and sued the Board of Equalization. The Virginia Supreme Court held for Taylor. Result: equalizations or reassessments must be done on an individual, property by property basis.
87.1%