“As mechanics and people of moderate incomes could live not only cheaper, but far better in these buildings, than in separate homes at long distances from the business and industrial centers, as well as enjoying far better opportunities for society amusement etc., they soon came to adopt that sort of life exclusively and separate residences continued to be maintained only by the rich. The growth of the cities continued for many years to be confined to the large spaces that in your day were left vacant far within the corporate limits. People owning such property, were anxious to get it improved so as to get their taxes back in the rents of buildings. Those owing suburban lands and lots soon found that it would be useless to improve them as people would not occupy them till all the more central lots were occupied. Much dispute arose as to the way in which such property should be taxed. At first the assessments of valuation on the lands were as high, as they had been before the adoption of the single tax plan. But it was soon found that the land no longer possessed such value. The value had been prospective or speculative, and people had paid as tax far more than the land would rent for, and held it and paid taxes on it for what it was expected to bring in the future. But now so much of the speculative value was taken out of this suburban land that the owners refused to pay the taxes in many cases, and nobody would buy it at the tax sales because the tax was more than the rent for agricultural purposes, and to buy for the future was like leasing property and paying rent on it for some years before occupying it.” “But,” I interposed, “the single tax people in Minneapolis disclaimed the intention of taking a full rental of the land in the way of taxes, but only enough to support the government, and thought that four per cent of its value would do that. As money was then worth 6 per cent and rents would average about the same the owner would clear 2 per cent. This they said would be sufficient to make the owner retain his interest in the property.” “Yes,” he answered, “that was their notion, but the events turned out very differently.