You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
A $450,000,000 Disagreement: Evidence against Full Value Equalization Rates
Kristina Ford and Daniel Baumol
Public Administration Review
Vol. 42, No. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1982), pp. 106-113
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/975531
Page Count: 8
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Equalization, Taxes, Assessed values, Prices, Property taxes, Real estate appraisal, Apartment buildings, Economic growth rate, Jurisdiction, Value appraisal
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Preview not available
Most states use the equalized full value of local jurisdictions in order to apportion state aid and to limit locally imposed tax burdens. New York State determined the equalized full value for New York City, and based on this figure imposed the 1982 taxing limit on the city. This essay describes the limit and the methods New York City used to provide evidence that it was too severe. While this evidence argues for a more liberal tax limit, it argues more forcefully that a tax limit based on direct measurement of full value is a poor administrative device. Since full value is only a vaguely definable concept and the relevant data is sparse, it does not lend itself to accurate measurement. In fact, it mandates both expensive oversights of the tax limitation by states and displays of brinksmanship and unnecessary contingency planning by local jurisdictions.
Public Administration Review © 1982 American Society for Public Administration