“In the meantime it began to be discovered that the owners of improved lots had lost all the money they had invested in them. A certain person who had bought a lot on Nicollet ave., for $40,000 and erected a building on it at a cost of $40,000 more, did not for two or three years discover any great difference in his tax, because although it was transferred from the building to the lot the whole amount was nearly the same. But after the tax assessment reached six per cent, the building was burned down just after the expiration of the insurance policy. The gentleman thought he had lost half of his property by neglecting the insurance, but in reality, he had lost it about all. He could not mortgage the lot for enough to build a house, nor even for enough to pay one year’s tax. Nor could he sell it for one-tenth of what he gave. It was his only on condition that he continued to pay a full rent for it and this he could not do unless he could rebuild. Even if he rebuilt, his net income would be only the interest on the cost of the building, he would get no return for the lot, or at best, but little. Thus the owner found himself no better off than a lease holder. He simply had the first right to pay the rent for his lot in the way of tax. And so it came about that if an owner could not immediately build something on his lot that he could rent to advantage, he simply defaulted on his taxes. The selling of vacant property for taxes became impossible except those lots wanted for immediate improvement, and not even those if several years’ taxes were in arrears. So the collection of back taxes became impossible on all vacant property.