(concurring -dissenting in part).
The need and the desirability of uniformity and equality in the asssessment and taxation of property to the'highest degree that .can be atttained is acknowledged by all fair-minded persons. That this ■ is the purpose is evident in both the constitution and the statutes. The means of carrying out that purpose in practical operation is quite another matter. The main opinion recognizes this in setting forth the requirement of “reasonable uniformity,” which, as the opinion states, has been determined does' not exist “in the state of Utah, or within Utah County.” A grave difficulty exists in the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of pieces of property in the state, e. g., over 50,000 in Utah County itself. It is obvious that this lack of uniformity and equality in the taxation cannot all be corrected at once. It seems to me that it should be recognized that this is also true within the counties. Even though Section 59-5-46.1, U.C.A.1953, provides that the tax commission shall carry on a continuous valuation of properties on a “county-by-county rotation basis,” this should not necessarily be taken to mean that it can only be done by whole counties at a time. It is possible that in a county there may be a particular section or sections where the taxation is greatly unequal in relation to the rest of that county as well as to the rest of the state. The start toward making necessary corrections must be made somewhere; and wherever the start is made it is not unnatural that those adversely affected complain. But from what is made to appear, I am not persuaded that the Tax Commission has been arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory in proceeding to*331ward thé deáired objective. It should not be impeded but should be encouraged to proceed in ' fulfilling . its responsibiltiy as expeditiously as possible. Except as noted above I am in agreement with the main opinion.