It is with great sadness that we announce that Arlo Woolery passed away on February 28, 2002, at his home in Sun City West, Arizona.

Arlo brought zest, courtesy and unfailing curiosity to all of his endeavors over 82 years. Even before graduation from Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, in 1943, he turned his gift for public speaking to early success as a radio broadcaster. He provided play-by-play radio descriptions of baseball games, complete with sound effects for hits and cheering crowds, guided only by wire service score reports. Later he held several executive positions in radio and television, dealing both with broadcasting, equipment manufacturing and the first development of cable television networks.

He became an expert on public utility regulation and valuation, earning the Certified Assessment Evaluator (CAE) designation from the International Association of Assessing Officers and serving as chairman of its education committee. He was an expert witness in numerous utility valuation cases and taught in the annual Wichita State University program on railroad and utility valuation for many years. The Supreme Court of Utah reflected the respect with which he was regarded when it described him as a “well-educated, long experienced and highly qualified appraiser.” From 1967 to 1976 he served as director of the Property Tax Program for the state of Arizona, dealing with issues of valuation and tax administration and taking the lead in the development of computer-assisted mass appraisal.

Arlo was the first executive director of the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, from 1974 to 1986, and upon retirement was named the Archibald M. Woodruff Fellow. He led the Institute’s move to Cambridge and its establishment as a center for education on land use and land-related tax issues. He organized and participated in numerous international symposiums on property taxation, land policy and computer-assisted valuation. He assisted in the development of the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training (formerly the Land Reform Training Institute) in Taiwan and served on its Board of Directors from 1975 to 2000. He also wrote and edited many books, including The Art of Valuation (1978); Introduction to Computer Assisted Valuation (1985); Property Tax Principles and Practice (1989); and Valuation of Railroad and Utility Property (1992).

“Arlo’s legacy to the Lincoln Institute is its solid academic underpinnings,” notes Kathryn J. Lincoln, Chairman of the Board. “Even after his official retirement, Arlo remained involved with the Lincoln Foundation, and his continuing leadership and teaching at the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training were instrumental in the development of that Lincoln program. We shall miss his wisdom and guidance.”

The introduction of property taxation in transitional economies offers a unique perspective from which to study fiscal and governmental decentralization, land privatization and market development. These reforms all involve fundamental changes from the centrally controlled and planned societies of the communist period. The Lincoln Institute has a particular interest in the experiences of countries that are adopting property taxation and is underwriting a series of case studies in consultation with research associates in Armenia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Russia and the Slovak Republic.

These studies demonstrate similarities in the challenges and problems faced by countries in transition and the extraordinary changes that have taken place in less than a decade since the fall of communism. At the same time, each country has followed a somewhat different path, adopting strategies that reflect its unique set of past traditions and current circumstances.

Decentralization and Privatization

Among the challenges facing these countries after nearly 50 years of communist rule are the decentralization of fiscal and political control and the reduction of the role of government in favor of private-sector ownership and activity. Privatization of land ownership has been a particularly sensitive issue. Taxes on real property have been introduced as part of a strategy to provide a revenue source to local governments, to encourage privatization of government-owned real estate assets, and to improve land utilization. Although in most cases the central governments continue to play a dominant role, a degree of local fiscal authority and autonomy has been introduced. Poland and Estonia have assigned these taxes to local self-governments, with authority to determine tax rates within limits established by their national parliaments.

In the other countries, national law sets the rate of taxation, but some local control is achieved by adjusting the coefficients applied to area measures that establish the tax base. The revenues raised from land and building taxes are still a relatively modest source of local revenue, and generally benefit rural communities more than urban areas. Although property taxes raise a minor portion of these countries’ total taxes at present, central governments envision a larger role for them in improving inter-governmental finance systems.

Privatization of state assets and ownership rights to real property is an essential yet complicated process that is still underway in each of the countries studied. In Estonia, for example, the desire to restitute land to pre-Soviet-period owners or their heirs initially complicated the determination of property rights. The adoption of a land tax in 1993, within two years of independence, was an essential element of Estonia’s land reform program, which also included privatization and market development. Limiting the tax base to land alone was intended to encourage its productive use, stimulating owners of restitution rights “to develop the property or sell it.”

In the former Soviet satellites, considerable private ownership remained under communism, but the formal cadastral systems were not maintained and the recording of property rights is still far from complete. During the Soviet period, land was treated separately from buildings, and this practice has continued in some countries, making real estate units more difficult to assemble for investment purposes. Property (buildings and structures) is treated separately from land for taxation purposes in Armenia, the Czech and Slovak Republics, and Russia.

While housing and business privatization has progressed to a degree in all countries, the release of land to private ownership and especially to ownership by foreigners has been a contentious issue. In Russia, although the Constitution and Civil Code provide for private property, the government and the Duma have failed to agree on a Land Code to provide a legal basis for land ownership. Most countries have placed some restrictions on foreign ownership, but permit long-term leases. Land taxation offers a potentially broad and expanding revenue base as privatization continues.

Market-based Reforms

In the absence of secure property rights and developed property markets, most countries have taken an incremental approach to incorporating market-based elements into their property tax bases. With the exception of Estonia, the countries in this study levy taxes on the basis of land or building area, adjusted by coefficients related to location, population, usage or other factors not derived directly from market indicators. As a logical step in their transitional reforms, Armenia and the Czech Republic are each exploring the addition of ad valorem elements to their area-based property tax, and Poland is considering proposals to shift to a market-based system. Plans for an ad valorem tax in the Slovak Republic await further fiscal, governmental and market reforms.

Estonia’s strong ideological commitment to a market economy led its Parliament to take the bold step in 1992 to base its land tax on market value. The first valuation assigned price zones to each assessment area, with the expectation that the methodology could be refined as understanding of real estate markets improved and as the markets matured. The collection of land tax information has strengthened real estate market activity and has been a catalyst for the development of land records, sales registries and cadastral maps. A revaluation in 1996 incorporated the expanded market databases.

Recent efforts to develop a pilot project for market value-based real property taxation in two Russian cities illustrate both the potential and the frustration of tax reform in the current Russian fiscal climate. The program began with funding from USAID in 1995, and federal legislation authorized the “experiment” in 1997. Before the current fiscal crises, the city of Novgorod anticipated implementation of the new tax in 1999 to replace the three existing non-value-based taxes on land, property of individuals and assets of enterprises. Whether the local officials will consider it possible to risk implementation under current conditions is now unclear.

Other Challenges

The reorganization of administrative functions and the cost of integrating and collecting property tax information are other challenges to the development of modern market-based property tax systems. Each country is struggling with structural reforms of Soviet-based administration and are seeking to improve inter-agency cooperation and efficiency in planning for property tax reforms.

The case studies illustrate the complex transitions that are underway in each of these countries. At the same time, the studies point out the important role that property taxation can play in providing a stable source of independent revenue to local governments, developing democratic and accountable public institutions, and maintaining a public claim on property entering the private market.

The potential benefits of market value-based taxation in stimulating real estate markets and promoting urban revitalization and efficient land use are just beginning to be recognized. The financial hardships still experienced by many people in these countries may keep property taxes at very modest levels for some time, making the design of a broad-based system with limited exemptions particularly important to the viability of property taxation in these new economies.

Note:

1. “Unlikely Icon,” Economist (February 28, 1998): 78.

Jane H. Malme is a fellow of the Lincoln Institute specializing in the development and implementation of property taxation in diverse international contexts.

She is coordinating the preparation of case studies with colleagues for the following transition countries:

Armenia: Richard R. Almy, consultant, Almy, Gloudemans, Jacobs & Denne, Chicago, Illinois, with Varduhi Abrahamian, International City/County Management Association, Yerevan, Armenia

Czech Republic: Gary Cornia and Phillip Bryson, Romney Institute of Public Management, Marriott School of Management, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, with Dr. Alena Rohlícková, Ministry of Finance, Czech Republic

Estonia: Jane H. Malme with Tambet Tiits, director, AS Kinnisvaraekspert, Tallinn, Estonia

Poland: Jane H. Malme with W. Jan Brzeski, president, Cracow Real Estate Institute, Cracow, Poland

Russia: Jane H. Malme with Dr. Natalia Kalinina, Center for Real Estate Analysis, Moscow, Russia

Slovak Republic: Gary Cornia and Phillip Bryson with Ing. Sona Capová, Univerzita Mateja Bela, Banská Bystrica, and Milos Koncek, Ministry of Finance, Slovak Republic

Sources: These figures are based on official country data sources and were provided by the research associates. No data was available from Russia.

It is undeniable that land use change in the United States has been occurring at a rapid rate. Between 1982 and 1997 alone, developed land increased nationwide by 25 million acres, or 34 percent. Population growth certainly helped to fuel this increase in settled land area, as the U.S. resident population grew by 15.6 percent during the same period. From these two trends, it follows that the average population density of developed areas has declined during the late twentieth century: the average number of residents per developed acre fell by 13.6 percent nationwide. This declining density of settled areas is one indicator that “sprawl” has been unfolding across the U.S.

Concerns about Sprawl

Rapid conversion of forests, farms and wetlands to residential, commercial and industrial uses has provoked growing concern among elected officials and voters in many states. In 1999, the National Governors’ Association adopted a statement of principles on better land use that called for preservation of open space and encouragement of growth in already developed portions of the landscape.

The deepening concern for containing sprawl and promoting denser development has been expressed repeatedly at the state and local levels of government. The recent report of the Connecticut Blue Ribbon Commission on Property Taxation and Smart Growth, for example, has explicitly linked “loss of farms, forest and open space . . . [to] decline of and flight from urban areas, along with economic and racial segregation” (State of Connecticut 2003). In New Hampshire during the spring of 2003, a dozen small towns in that politically conservative state authorized million-dollar bond issues to finance conservation of rural lands threatened by metropolitan growth radiating from Boston.

Urban economists have often noted that we should expect the areas of metropolitan regions to expand along with growth of population and income per capita, but this readiness of land markets to accommodate a larger and more affluent population is not the entire story. Jan K. Brueckner and Hyun-A Kim, for example, have pointed out that the territorial expansion of metropolitan regions during recent decades has probably been excessive from a social efficiency point of view. One reason is the failure of developers to account for the loss of amenity values as development consumes open spaces. (Ecological economists would describe this loss as depreciation of natural capital.) Another reason is the failure of local governments to charge developers for the full cost of public infrastructure investments necessitated by metropolitan expansion. Other contributing factors are mortgage interest subsidies under the federal income tax and a failure to price congestion externalities on the roadways linking the metropolitan center to its fringe communities.

There may be other reasons for believing that metropolitan regions have expanded excessively in the U.S. since World War II. First, federal and state grant formulas sometimes reward towns and cities for adopting low-density zoning rules. An example is state reimbursement of pupil busing costs, a subsidy that encourages local school boards to ignore the land use implications of their school siting decisions. Second, several rounds of federal tax cuts since the 1980s have increased the disposable incomes of already affluent households and fueled a status competition favoring construction of ever larger homes on ever larger residential lots.

Tax Policy Tools for Smart Growth

Whatever the exact set of reasons for metropolitan sprawl, state and local policy makers have been scrambling to find policy tools with which to promote compact development. More than a generation ago, nearly all states adopted use-value assessment of rural lands in an effort to protect agricultural lands and other kinds of open space from development. When a rural parcel is enrolled in a use-value assessment program, it is treated for purposes of property taxation as though it were going to remain undeveloped in perpetuity. This legal fiction conveys a substantial tax benefit to rural landowners on the metropolitan fringe because their parcels have far greater market value than assessed value. Under the law, property assessors are required to ignore the development potential of undeveloped parcels enrolled in use-value assessment programs.

Theoretical research by Robert D. Mohr and this author (2003) has found that use-value property assessment, if properly designed, can postpone land use change and thereby provide a window of opportunity for local governments and conservation groups to buy development rights before rural lands are lost to metropolitan growth. However, in 15 states (including Arizona, Florida and New Mexico), the private decision to develop a rural parcel that has enjoyed use-value assessment results in no financial penalty at all to the owner. Hence, the tax incentive to postpone development is very weak. Only in those states (such as Connecticut and Rhode Island) that impose stiff development penalties if a parcel has been enrolled in the use-value assessment program for less than a decade is there a fairly strong incentive to postpone development despite escalating urban land rents. Perhaps it is time for state governments to review their use-value assessment programs to see if they actually postpone development of rural lands. If not, reform of use-value assessment statutes is in order.

Another way to promote compact metropolitan development would be to permit city governments to adopt split-rate property taxation. Under this type of property tax reform, a city can lower the tax rate on buildings and other capital improvements and still maintain the level of municipal services by raising the tax rate on land values. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has had this form of property taxation since 1913. Pittsburgh and Scranton have been the pioneers in tax reform, but by 1995, some 15 cities in the Keystone State had adopted two-rate property taxation. Although the evidence is circumstantial, Wallace Oates and Robert Schwab (1997) have tentatively concluded that lowering the tax rate on building values relative to land values helped to spur downtown commercial construction in Pittsburgh during the 1980s, despite the sharp decline of the city’s steel industry.

A Case Study of New Hampshire

As the fastest-growing state in the Northeast, New Hampshire is witnessing the rapid transformation of its traditional landscape of forests, farms and villages. Between 1982 and 1997, the developed area in the state increased by 210,000 acres, a 55 percent increase, although the population increased only about 26 percent (England 2002). To date, policy makers have paid little attention to the impact of the state’s high property taxes on these trends.

Using a regional econometric model to perform tax reform simulations, I have explored a revenue-neutral shift toward land value taxation in the state. In one study, the statewide property tax (which raised $460 million in 1999) is hypothetically replaced by a pure land value tax yielding an equal amount of state tax revenue. This policy simulation suggests that gross state product, employment and residential construction in the Granite State all would receive a boost from this type of tax reform. The boost to the state’s economic development would be long lasting, not transitory. However, because net migration into the state would receive a strong stimulus, this statewide approach to property tax reform would not serve to deter sprawl (England 2003b).

In a companion study, I simulated a shift to two-rate property taxation in New Hampshire’s largest city, Manchester, and in the economically depressed mill town of Berlin (England 2003a). In both cities, local employment, output and construction would receive a persistent boost following reform of the property tax. This stimulus to urban economic activity also would help to restrain the migration of households and businesses to surrounding rural areas.

If we want to slow down the development of rural lands, then we need to promote employment opportunities and healthy neighborhoods in already settled urban areas. A shift to two-rate property taxation by city governments could help to spark urban revitalization and thereby protect undeveloped lands on the metropolitan fringe. However, even though a shift to two-rate property taxation would promote investment and reinvestment in urban areas, this type of tax reform is likely to confront skepticism and even political opposition. Because industrial and commercial properties frequently have a higher ratio of building value to land value than do residential properties, raising the tax rate on land values in order to pay for a rate cut on capital improvements could have a regressive impact on the distribution of property tax payments. The owners of office buildings and electric power plants, for example, might enjoy lower tax bills while many homeowners might find increased tax bills after implementation of split-rate taxation.

My present research as a David C. Lincoln Fellow aims to see whether this potentially regressive impact of shifting to two-rate property taxation can be avoided, thereby undercutting potential voter opposition. Figure 1 demonstrates that the combination of a generous credit with two tax rates could make a “typical” homeowner a supporter of property tax reform.

Analysis of property tax data for three New Hampshire cities suggests that the introduction of split-rate taxation would indeed be acceptable to many homeowners if it were accompanied by a uniform tax credit on each annual tax bill. One of these communities is Dover, a small but growing city with abundant undeveloped land. In 2002, the total property tax rate was 1.89 percent of market value. Applied equally to land and building values totaling $2.03 billion, this single rate raised $26 million for municipal services and local public schools, with additional revenues raised for county and state purposes.

If the City of Dover had cut the tax rate on buildings by $2 per thousand dollars of assessed valuation and offered a (maximum) credit of $1,000 on each tax bill, then it would have needed to raise the tax rate on assessed land values by roughly $18 per thousand in order to maintain the level of municipal and local school spending during 2002. That particular tax reform would have lowered the annual property tax payment of most owners of single-family homes and residential condos in the city, especially those with relatively modest values. Because of the credit, even owners of inexpensive residential lots would have gained from the tax reform. Many owners of apartment complexes, large commercial properties and extensive tracts of vacant land, however, would have paid more local taxes after the shift to two-rate taxation and a uniform credit applied to each tax bill.

Conclusion

More than a century ago, Henry George advocated taxation of land value in the name of social equity. Contemporary economists have more often advocated land value taxation as an efficiency-enhancing policy favoring economic development. My own research suggests that taxing land values more heavily than building and improvement values could foster urban revitalization and help to protect undeveloped land at the same time. However, unless the design of property tax reform takes distributional impacts explicitly into account, George’s concern for social equity is unlikely to be served.

Richard W. England is professor of economics and natural resources and director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of New Hampshire. He has held a David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation for three years and will be a visiting fellow at the Institute during 2004.

References

Brueckner, Jan K. and Hyun-A Kim. 2003. Urban Sprawl and the Property Tax. International Tax and Public Finance 10: 5–23.

England, Richard W. 2002. Perspective: A New England Approach to Preserving Open Space. Regional Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston 12(1): 2–5.

———.2003a. Land Value Taxation and Local Economic Development: Results of a Simulation Study. State Tax Notes, 22 April: 323–327.

———.2003b. State and Local Impacts of a Revenue-Neutral Shift from a Uniform Property to a Land Value Tax: Results of a Simulation Study. Land Economics, February: 38–43.

England, Richard W. and Robert D. Mohr. 2003. Land Development and Current Use Assessment: A Theoretical Note. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, April: 46–52.

Oates, Wallace E. and Robert M. Schwab. 1997. The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh Experience. National Tax Journal 50(1): 1–21.

State of Connecticut. 2003. Report of Blue Ribbon Commission on Property Tax Burdens and Smart Growth Incentives.

The community land trust (CLT) is one mechanism that addresses the need for affordable housing, and it also can be considered an institutional mechanism for capturing socially produced land value.

Nonprofit organizations operated for charitable purposes in the United States are exempt from most taxes, including investment income, sales, and property taxes. They benefit from the tax deductions that donors receive for charitable contributions, and some nonprofits also benefit from financing raised through tax-exempt bonds. Data allows informed estimates of the size of these tax benefits for most types of charities. However, comprehensive data on religious organizations and governments, both of which are also largely exempt from taxes, are difficult to obtain.

A review of these tax benefits provides a useful perspective on efforts by state and local governments to collect PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes), which generally focus on nonprofits other than religious organizations (see page 23).

Tax benefits for nonprofits, such as educational institutions, health and human service organizations, foundations, and the arts, were worth about $140 billion in FY2009. About half ($72 billion) was from forgone taxes on investment income, about a third ($46 billion) was the tax benefit for charitable contributions, and about a tenth ($15 billion) was from property tax exemptions. Sales tax exemptions ($3 billion) and benefits from tax-exempt bonds ($5 billion) round out the total.

In 2009, nonprofit property tax exemptions (excluding those for religious organizations) were slightly less than 4 percent of the $400 billion total. Of course, the property tax exemption share varies widely across communities.

The distribution of five types of tax benefits are shown in figure 1 for six categories of nonreligious charitable nonprofits. They are listed in the order of their overall tax benefit, with educational institutions receiving the most benefits and arts organizations the least. The exemption for the tax on investment income has the same ranking as the overall tax benefit, but rankings of the other tax benefits vary widely.

The property tax exemption accrues to those sectors that use property and buildings most extensively, with health having the highest benefit followed by education. Foundations, which figure significantly in income and charitable contribution tax benefits, receive only modest property tax benefits. Sales tax exemptions, the smallest tax benefit in the aggregate, accrue mainly to the health sector.

This summary of the distribution of property taxes by charitable sector makes it clear why local governments have focused their efforts to collect property tax PILOTs on hospitals and universities—that’s where the property tax money is—but most tax benefits for nonprofits come from other sources.

Sources: Totals from An Overview of the Nonprofit and Charitable Sector. 2009. Congressional Research Service (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40919.pdf). Sector allocations based on data from National Center for Charitable Statistics (http://nccs.urban.org) and J. Cordes, M. Gantz, and T. Pollak. 2002. What is the property-tax exemption worth? In Property-tax exemption for charities, ed. E. Brody. Urban Institute Press.