Although the fact is not widely acknowledged by urban scholars, because of the way that it is administered the property tax helps to shape the social geography of metropolitan areas. Research by public finance specialists has shown that cheap housing is often overassessed, and that variations in assessment ratios (the ratio of assessed to market values) usually favour the suburbs. Sales prices and assessment data from the Hamilton, Ontario, metropolitan area for 1976, 1996, and 1999 confirm these patterns and show that they are persistent. In addition, cross-tabulations by market value and location show that geographical variations in assessment ratios are caused by the inequitable treatment of inexpensive property, not vice versa. A 1998 reassessment made the situation worse. The main difficulty in reducing tax inequities is political, not technical.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerryB J LBednarzR S, 1975, “A hedonic model of prices and assessments for single-family homes: Does the assessor follow the market or the market follow the assessor?” Land Economics5121–40.
2.
BirdR MSlackN E, 1978Residential Property Tax Relief in Ontario (University of Toronto Press, Toronto).
3.
BlackD, 1972, “The nature and extent of effective property tax rate variation within the City of Boston” National Tax Journal25203–209.
4.
BorlandM V, 1987, “An alternative measure of the degree of inequity in assessed values for individual properties: A Theoretical perspective” Public Finance Quarterly15352–365.
5.
BorlandM V, 1990, “On the degree of property tax assessment inequity in complex tax jurisdictions” American Journal of Economics and Sociology49431–438.
6.
BuntingTFilionPPristonH, 2000, “Centralization, decentralization and structural dominance: differential patterns of density gradients in Canadian metropolitan regions”, unpublished manuscript, Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Ontario.
7.
CaseK E, 1978Property Taxation. The Need for Reform (Ballinger, Cambridge, MA).
8.
ClaytonF A, 1966Distribution of Urban Residential Property Tax Burdens and Expenditure Benefits in Canadaunpublished PhD thesis, Department of Economics, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.
9.
CoxA TStuderK, 1997, “The accuracy and effect of market value property tax assessments” Journal of Economics2311–19.
10.
DaviesJ W, 1978“The distribution of property tax assessment inequities in Hamilton”, unpublished MA thesis, Department of Geography, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.
11.
DeanJ MHumD P JStevensH, 1989, “Improving property assessment: A Study of the Winnipeg reassessment” Canadian Tax Journal3793–112.
12.
EllisLCombsJ PWeberW, 1983, “Administrative inequity in the property tax: Further evidence” Public Finance Quarterly11491–506.
13.
EngleR F, 1975, “De facto discrimination in residential assessments: Boston” National Tax Journal28445–451.
14.
FisherG, 1996The Worst Tax? A History of the Property Tax in America (University Press of Kansas, Lawrence, KS).
15.
FuerstJ SDittonA, 1975, “Reducing property taxes: An evaluation of a collective action” Land Economics5194–97.
16.
HarrisRMercierM, 2000, “A test for geographers: The geography of educational achievement in Toronto and Hamilton” The Canadian Geographer44210–227.
17.
HeaveyJ F, 1983, “Patterns of property tax exploitation produced by infrequent assessment” American Journal of Economics and Sociology42441–449.
18.
JohnsonD W, 1958, “A note on local administration of the property tax. A case study of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania” National Tax Journal11265–271.
19.
KuzT JSaprowichM, 1994, “Winnipeg residential tax assessment in 1990: A Multi-method analysis to determine assessment equity” Canadian Journal of Urban Research359–73.
20.
LittleA D, 1973A Study of Property Taxes and Urban Blight (US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC).
21.
McNivenC, 1995, “Spatial analysis of property tax inequities: A Case study of London, Ontario”, unpublished MA thesis, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
22.
MargolisJ, 1956, “The variation of property tax rates within a metropolitan region” National Tax Journal9326–330.
23.
MehtaSGiertzF, 1996, “Measuring the performance of the property tax assessment process” National Tax Journal4973–85.
24.
MikesellJ L, 1980, “Property tax reassessment cycles: Significance for uniformity and effective rates” Public Finance Quarterly823–37.
25.
MitchellG W, 1948, “Using sales data to measure the quality of property tax administration” National Tax Journal1330–340.
26.
OldmanOAaronH, 1965, “Assessment-sales ratios under the Boston property tax” National Tax Journal1836–49.
27.
Ontario Committee on Taxation1967Report Volume 2 (Queen's Printer, Toronto).
28.
Ontario Fair Tax Commission1993Fair Taxation in a Changing World: Highlights (University of Toronto Press, Toronto).
PaglinMFogartyM, 1972, “Equity and the property tax: A New conceptual focus” National Tax Journal25557–565.
32.
PetersonG E, 1973, “The property tax and low income housing markets”, in Property Tax Reform Ed. PetersonG E (The Urban Institute, Washington, DC) pp 107–124.
33.
ProkaskaJ T, 1999, “Property taxes depend on where you live” Hamilton Spectator 9 August, page 1.
34.
RomansJ T, 1970, “On the measurement of assessment error” National Tax Journal2389–91.
35.
RossM H, 1971, “The property tax assessment review process: A Cause for regressive property taxation” National Tax Journal24137–143.
36.
SequiraM, 2000, “Back to the future … A peek into the past… As we step into the future” Insti-News821–28.
