The City-Line Land Grab
A real estate developer attempts to use municipal law to exclude his own property from city taxes while reaping the benefits of inclusion.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Tacoma, Aug 1 - A suit was filed by one C. Kelly, with a view to the total annexation of the town of Puyallup. The citizens of that town are petitioning the city to ask for the detachment of a large portion of their property which is now included within the corporate limits, while the rest of it remains outside. The court will probably have to decide on the grounds that the owner was cheated through an alleged error. There is a section in the law that, for the sake of incorporated towns, or those incorporated under the new laws, you shall not be able to include more than 640 acres of any single property holder whose land has been subdivided into town lots. It is thought that this provision will defeat the annexation. The law, also, does not authorize the council to make the resolution and petitions for the inclusion of these properties without the consent of the individual owners, and there is a great deal of controversy in deciding the amount of the county allotment, which appears to be the only way to have the issue settled and the order of the court respected.
“It is thought that this provision will defeat the annexation.”
This 1888 land dispute over municipal boundaries and tax obligations mirrors the ongoing tension in modern Puget Sound between property developers, local tax districts, and the sprawl of city limits. The struggle to define 'who is in' and 'who is out' of the city remains a core driver of local politics in Washington.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.