478 forestry Quarterly 



Nevertheless, the increasing tax was the one thing which put 

 the lot on the market. 



Who is the loser when the lot is sold and the timber cut off? 

 The owner is if the cutting is done before the lot is financially 

 mature and the taxes have not been excessive. The town is in 

 any case, because the assessed value must be reduced after 

 cutting. On only 13 of the 65 cut-over lots above mentioned is 

 the present assessed value as high as the very low valuations 

 that prevailed in 1908. The total assessed value on the 65 lots 

 has dropped from $212,590 in 1908 to $104,000 in 1914. The 

 town has, therefore, lost the increased revenue which it sought 

 to gain. 



In order to make it still more clear what the town loses when 

 its timber lots are cut off, an example may be cited of the 5 out 

 of 15 lots where the cutting was done before April 1, 1914, and 

 on which the assessments after cutting are known. The follow- 

 ing tabulation concerning these 5 lots may be of interest : 



Assessed Assessed Value in Actual Value Assessed 



Value Year Preceding at Time of Value 



1908 Cutting Cutting 1914 



$7,500 $10,000 $10,000 $3,700 



700 4,500 9,000 900 



590 1,500 5,000 414 



4,000 7,000 14,000 800 



1,200 3,000 9,000 450 



Totals.. . $13,990 $26,000 $47,000 $6,264 



Averages $2,798 $5,200 $9,400 $1,252.80 



Using the averages of these 5 lots for computation purposes 

 and a tax rate of 1^^ per cent, the town obtains in taxes for a 

 10-year period the following: 



$5,200.00X 1M% for one year $78. 00 



1,252.80X1^% for 9 years 169 . 12 



Total for 10 years $247. 12 



Supposing the 1908 assessment had been continued for 10 

 years and the lots had not been cut off. The town would then 

 have obtained in taxes $2,798 Xl>^% for 10 years, which is 

 $419.70 or $172.58 per lot more than where the increased assess- 

 ment was maintained for only one year and the assessments were 

 reduced, as indicated, following the cutting. It should be remem- 

 bered that these are actual figures taken from tax records in 

 New Hampshire. 



