Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 83.djvu/509

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
City of Dallas[1] City of Houston[2] Seattle[3]
1907 $16,477,000 1904 $19,787,000 1905 $ 70,038,000
1908 21,300,000 1905 20,588,000 1906 125,735,000
1909 21,356,000 1906 23,682,000 1907 155,751,000
1910 38,530,000 1907 30,353,000 1908 178,427,000
1911 44,468,000 1908 30,486,000 1909 184,737,000
1912 44,605,000 1909 36,533,000 1910 205,309,000
1910 36,627,000 1911 212,014,000
1911 46,916,000 1912 212,929,000
1912 61,389,000

There has been no considerable increase in the acreage of Dallas or Houston during the period under consideration. The acreage of Seattle, however, has increased from 29 to 60 thousand acres, between 1905 and 1912. The table is therefore worthless for comparison.

Many Canadian cities make separate assessments of land and improvements. Though they are outside the strictest limits of the discussion, they are probably typical of the rapidly growing towns in the western states. It is at least worth noting that the land values in Vancouver more than trebled between 1895 and 1909, that the increase in Victoria is approximately the same, while in the newer cities like Winnipeg the increase in valuation is even more rapid.

City land values are increasing—slowly in the east, more rapidly in the west. Each decade sees from twenty per cent, to one or two hundred per cent, added to the value. Still the rate of increase does not compare with that for forest or agricultural lands.

The increase in the land values throughout the entire United States has been immense during recent years. Particularly since 1896, timber and farm land values have advanced rapidly in price. City land values, though less rapidly, have risen none the less surely. What the future may hold in store for a nation whose timber lands treble, and whose farm lands double, in value during a single decade, the student of statistics may not venture to prophesy. The matter is at least worthy of serious consideration.

  1. Letter from the Commissioner of Finance and Revenue, April 8, 1913.
  2. Letter from the chairman of the Board of Appraisement, December 20, 1912.
  3. Letter from the County Treasurer, April 1, 1913.