SHARE
The property tax in Indiana has long generated considerable public policy debate, centering on the methods prescribed by the state to determine property values. Most states use some form of market value as the assessment standard, but Indiana relies on “true tax value.” Indiana law defines this as “the value determined under the rules of the State Board of Tax Commissioners,” and it declares that “true tax value does not mean fair market value.”
A landmark decision by the state Supreme Court in December 1998 ignited new debate over Indiana’s property tax system. The Court ruled that the tables used in the 1995 assessment manual lacked “meaningful reference to property wealth,” did not contain “objectively verifiable data,” and violated the state constitution. Although the legal opinion contained language suggesting approval of the use of market-derived data, the Court fell short of mandating a system based strictly on market value.
Almost two years have passed since this ruling, but minimal progress has been made in implementing a more equitable and uniform assessment system. Policy makers have focused almost exclusively on the projected tax shifts, especially those to homeowners, under market-derived valuation methods, and have all but ignored the underlying inequities that plague Indiana’s assessment system.
This article reviews the essential features of Indiana’s property tax and assessment systems, describes recent reform efforts, and identifies critical reform issues, apart from the tax shifts, that need to be addressed.
Property Tax and Assessment Systems
Property Tax Revenues. In 1999, the property tax raised more than $4.6 billion, nearly all of it generated locally and used for local services, especially K-12 public education. The property tax is the largest revenue source in Indiana, generating more revenue in 1999 than federal funds ($3.8 billion), individual income taxes ($3.7 billion), and sales and use taxes ($3.4 billion). Together, these four revenue sources account for nearly 80 percent of total state and local revenue (see Figure 1).
Nearly 65 percent of the total property tax levy in 1999 was paid by the business community, including commercial, industrial, utility, and agricultural property (see Figure 2). Personal property accounts for about one-half of the total business property tax burden. Although Indiana’s constitution prohibits unequal property taxation, this relatively high business share demonstrates a de facto classification system that allocates a majority of the property tax burden to non-voting entities.
Local Administration. The primary assessing jurisdiction in Indiana is the township. Each of the state’s 1,008 townships elects either a full- or part-time assessor, depending on population; nearly 85 percent of these assessors are part-time. County assessors are elected in each of the state’s 92 counties. As a general rule, the county assessor has a greater role when townships have more part-time assessors, because the county assessor reviews both personal property and real estate assessments.
State Administration. The State Board of Tax Commissioners (Tax Board), the first property tax commission of its kind in the nation, is primarily responsible for promulgating assessment rules and regulations for both real and personal property. Additionally, the Tax Board hears property tax appeals, approves local government budgets, provides assessor training, and maintains a comprehensive local government database.
Assessment Standards. Real and personal property are assessed at one-third of true tax value (TTV). The TTV of improved real property is based on a cost approach, but neither the replacement costs nor the depreciation schedules are market derived. In fact, when compared to the market, Indiana’s TTVs vary widely, not only between property classes (i.e., residential, business, utility and agricultural) but within classes as well.
The TTV of personal property is based on original acquisition cost, but, like the TTV of real property, relies on depreciation schedules that bear little relationship to the market. Most business assets receive accelerated depreciation of 40 to 60 percent in the first few years. However, older assets are subject to a relatively high residual value of 30 percent of original cost. Business inventory also is based on its original cost and is subject to the same floor, but it receives a 35 percent assessment deduction.
Indiana law provides that the TTV of land is to be based on market value, but recent studies have found that land assessments are significantly less than market value. Residential land values are roughly 40 percent of market value. The TTV of farmland is based on a use value of $495 per acre, adjusted for soil productivity, resulting in an assessment that is also well below market value.
Assessment Cycle. Indiana employs two different assessment cycles. Personal property is self-assessed annually, while real property reassessment is both infrequent and irregular. The last general reassessment of real property took effect in March 1995. The previous reassessment occurred in 1989, and reassessments generally took effect every ten years before then. The next general reassessment of real property has been delayed from March 1999 until at least March 2002.
Assessment Reform
Major state reform efforts, whether in welfare programs, school funding or tax policy, tend be driven by either fiscal distress or judicial mandates, but the political process dictates the speed of reform. This same pattern holds true for tax reform to achieve a more equitable and uniform assessment system in Indiana, as policy makers have been slow to respond to judicial mandates.
Judicial Efforts. The Indiana Supreme Court’s 1998 decision in State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Town of St. John is widely considered to be the most significant judicial decision on taxation in the state’s history. The Supreme Court affirmed the state Tax Court’s decision that the 1995 real property assessment manual violated the state constitution’s requirement that the Indiana General Assembly provide for “. . . a uniform and equal rate of property assessment and taxation.”
The Supreme Court found these mandates of uniformity and equality were not met because the manual’s cost schedules were arbitrary, did not reflect actual construction costs, and were not based on “objectively verifiable” data. Unlike the Tax Court, however, the Supreme Court did not mandate a strict market value system. Rather, it ruled that any departures from market value must result in assessments that are “substantially uniform and equal based on property wealth.”
Because executive and legislative policy makers have been slow to respond to this mandate, the Tax Court has become increasingly assertive in the pursuit of an equitable assessment system. Recently, the Tax Court established certain dates for both the adoption (June 2001) and implementation (March 2002) of constitutional assessment regulations, required the Tax Board to submit monthly progress reports, and announced that an independent reassessment commissioner would be appointed if the Tax Board’s efforts were “deficient in any meaningful way.”
Executive Efforts. To carry out its duty to ensure uniformity and equality of property assessment and taxation, the Indiana General Assembly has delegated the development and oversight of the state’s assessment system to the State Tax Board, an executive agency under the governor. This agency has the unenviable task of creating a new assessment system that will likely cause considerable shifts in tax burdens. Delays have further politicized this process, and assessment reform and tax burden shifts have become the focus of the November 2000 general election.
The Tax Board has taken steps to comply with the Supreme Court decision. The Board’s 1999 proposed real property assessment manual incorporated market-derived cost tables for all property classes. Residential depreciation schedules also were based on the market, and the base value of agricultural land was increased from $495 to $1,050 an acre.
Unfortunately, other actions by the Tax Board and the inaction of the executive branch may have offset these improvements. For example, the proposed manual provided a residential assessment reduction, or shelter allowance. The Tax Board argued that basic shelter is not property wealth, since other assets cannot substitute for shelter. A shelter allowance was calculated for each county, ranging in value between $16,000 and $22,686, to be deducted from residential property assessments. This unique valuation method would reduce the predicted residential tax shift from 33 to 7 percent and could be considered a form of classification. Viewing this shift as unacceptable, the governor did not approve the 1999 proposed real estate manual, illustrating the highly politicized nature of assessment reform.
Legislative Efforts. Anticipating a major court decision, the 1997 Indiana General Assembly enacted legislation that many considered the first step toward significant assessment reform. It increased assessor training requirements, improved the local and state appeals process, and required the state to establish level of assessment and uniformity standards and to conduct equalization studies. Again, these improvements may have been offset by other legislative initiatives. The 1997 legislation allows township assessors to establish land values, an authority that previously rested with county land commissions. Current data indicates that these township land values are far from market values, and it is unlikely that the large number of part-time township assessors can establish more accurate land values in the future.
The recently enacted equalization legislation is also problematic. Most states equalize assessments in the first year that reassessment takes effect, to provide immediate mitigation for unequal assessment. Current Indiana law delays equalization for at least two years following the effective date of reassessment.
Conclusion
It comes as no surprise that projected property tax shifts have become the focal point of both assessment reform efforts and the 2000 general election. The highly politicized debate over “acceptable” tax burden shifts has distracted policy makers from addressing reform of assessment regulations. While market-derived assessment manuals represent a significant step, this alone will not result in a more uniform and equitable assessment system. Policy makers must also consider the following issues:
1. Taxpayer equity cannot be measured by interclass tax shifts at the county level alone. Assessment reform will produce dramatic intraclass and intracounty tax shifts, but these shifts have been discussed only as they relate to residential property. Yet, current data indicates that equally significant shifts will occur within other property classes, especially business property.
2. The current administrative structure of the state’s assessment system may not be compatible with an equitable and uniform assessment system. Restructuring the Tax Board could help insulate it from the political consequences of its oversight function. At the local level, policy makers should consider streamlining the roles of local assessors and identifying alternative assessment jurisdiction models based on population, parcel counts, and/or assessed value.
3. Adoption and enforcement of strict equalization standards may be the most significant step in the reform process.
4. The Indiana assessment community should take further steps to increase the level of assessor training and expand assessor qualification requirements. Policy makers also should consider appointment of local assessors by the county executive.
5. Indiana land assessments have been and continue to be well below market value. This underlying problem must be rectified through assessor training, more diligent state oversight, and implementation of the equalization process.
These issues must be addressed in order to remedy the inequities currently plaguing Indiana’s property tax and assessment systems.
____________
Frank Kelly and Jeff Wuensch are cofounders of the Nexus Group, an Indiana-based research firm specializing in property taxation. Kelly is also assistant professor of economics at Butler University and Indiana University; he previously served as the senior tax analyst for the Indiana State Tax Board. Wuensch previously worked as director of tax review at the Indiana State Tax Board and at the Indiana Fiscal Policy Institute. Kelly, Wuensch and Thomas Hamilton, assistant professor of real estate in the Department of Finance at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota, are joint recipients of a David C. Lincoln Fellowship in Land Value Taxation from the Lincoln Institute. This article is based on their study of Indiana’s property tax system as part of their Fellowship project.
Total state and local revenue: Table/Chart 1 Sources are the Indiana State Tax Board and Indiana State Budget Agency Who pays the property tax: Table/Chart 2 Source is the Indiana State Tax Board.
SHARE
In the context of entirely new fiscal policies and new approaches to property rights in central and eastern Europe over the past decade, taxes on land and buildings have taken on significant new roles—politically as adjuncts to privatization, restitution and decentralization, and fiscally as revenue-raising tools for local governments.
The Lincoln Institute is particularly interested in the complex debate over property-based taxes and in how different countries experience the transition from communism to democracy and from planned to market-driven economies. Over the past four years, the Institute has undertaken a series of educational programs to help public officials and business leaders in eastern Europe understand both underlying principles and practical examples of property taxation and valuation through offering varied perspectives and frameworks for decision making.
The Institute is also sponsoring a series of case studies to compare the implementation of ad valorem property tax systems in eastern European countries. These studies provide a unique perspective from which to review the initiation of land privatization, fiscal decentralization and land markets, as well as to compare the various legal and administrative features adopted for the respective tax systems.
Programs in Estonia
The Baltic country of Estonia was the first of the new independent states to recognize the benefits of land taxation and thus has been the focus of several Lincoln Institute programs. The Institute’s work in Estonia began in September 1993 when Fellow Jane Malme and Senior Fellow Joan Youngman participated in a conference with the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on the design of a property taxation system. Estonia had just instituted its land tax program, and since then the Institute has continued to support programs there relating to land reform and property taxation.
The most recent education program, on “Land and Tax Policies for Urban Markets in Estonia,” was presented in the capital of Tallinn in May to nearly 30 senior-level state and city officials interested in public finance, land reform and urban development. President H. James Brown, Jane Malme, Joan Youngman and a faculty of international experts explored current issues concerning land reform, valuation and taxation. They also discussed methods of urban planning, land management and taxation to both encourage development of urban land markets and finance local governments.
Estonia is also serving as the pilot case study for a survey instrument to gather and analyze information from countries adopting new fiscal instruments for market-based economies. Malme and Youngman are working closely with Tambet Tiits, director of a private real estate research and consulting firm in Tallinn, to draft the survey, research and collect data, and analyze the results.
Other Case Studies and Conferences
A second case study examines Poland, where an ad valorem property tax law is under legislative consideration. Dr. Jan Brzeski, director of the Cracow Real Estate Institute, serves as the country research director and liaison with the Institute. Subsequent studies will survey Latvia, Lithuania and Russia. In addition, Professors Gary Cornia and Phil Bryson of the Marriott School of Management at Brigham Young University in Utah are using the Lincoln Institute survey instrument to study property tax systems in the Czech and Slovak Republics.
The Lincoln Institute was a sponsor of the fourth international conference on local taxation and property valuation of the London-based Institute of Revenues, Rating and Valuation (IRRV) in Rome in early June. The conference attracts about 300 senior level officials from central as well as local governments throughout Europe. Dennis Robinson, Lincoln Institute vice president for programs and operations, was on the conference advisory committee and chaired a session on “Case Studies in Local Taxation in the New Democracies,” at which Jane Malme and Joan Youngman discussed the Institute’s case studies on land and building taxation in transitional economies. Other participants in that session were Institute associates Tambit Tiits of Estonia and Jan Brzeski of Poland. Board member Gary Cornia spoke about his research on property taxation in the Czech Republic. Martim Smolka, senior fellow for Latin America and the Caribbean, presented a paper on “Urban Land Management and Value Capture” at another session chaired by Joan Youngman. Jane Malme also was a discussion leader for a session on “Tax Collection and Administration.”
The Institute is planning another program with OECD in December 1997 for public officials and practitioners in the Baltic countries of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to examine policy aspects of land valuation and mass appraisal concepts for ad valorem taxation.
SHARE
The Lincoln Institute’s China Program was established several years ago, in part to develop training programs on property taxation policy and local government finance with officials from the State Administration of Taxation (SAT). The Institute and SAT held a joint forum on international property taxation in Shenzhen in December 2003, and more than 100 participants attended another course held in China in May 2004. In January 2005, 24 Chinese tax officials from 15 provinces visited the United States for additional programs; many of them are developing property tax systems in six pilot cities. The Institute also supports the Development Research Center (DRC) of the State Council to research property tax assessment in China, and they jointly organized a forum in February 2005.
Economic growth and institutional reforms in China over the past two decades have created profound changes within the society. The central authorities now need to set forth new policies and procedures for modern governance to address devolution of certain authority to local governments, rapid urban and rural development, and changes in land uses and land and fiscal policies. The national government’s commitment to further modernization is most evident in the effort to develop and implement a new property taxation system.
This article describes the current system and discusses issues and challenges that must be overcome to implement a successful property tax policy in China. Given the complexity of this endeavor and the huge variation in economic development across the country, a gradualist approach, which has proved effective in China’s modernization process, may be the best way to initiate property tax reform and development.
Current Taxation System
China collects 24 types of taxes. The central and local governments share the value added tax (VAT) and business tax revenues; the former tax is the primary revenue source for the central government, whereas the latter is the most important tax for local governments. Two other important tax sources for the central government are the consumption (excise) tax and the personal income tax. Twelve taxes are related to land and property, but most do not generate significant revenues. The business tax accounted for 14.41 percent of total central and local government revenues in 2002, but only a small portion of that amount was generated from property-related sources. The reason is that business and income taxes are collected only when land or property is rented or sold, and thus do not provide a steady stream of revenue. It is hard to imagine that any of the 12 property-related taxes could play a key role in resource allocation and local government finance over the long term.
An evaluation of the current tax system reveals additional concerns.
The shortcomings in the current taxation system have resulted in major fiscal problems for the central government, such as declining revenue mobilization and ineffective use of tax policy to leverage macroeconomic policy (Bahl 1997). When the government conducted tax reform in 1993 to overcome some of the problems, one of the largest initiatives shifted responsibility for urban and public services to local governments.
This measure was successful in improving the central government’s fiscal condition; however, the revenue share for local governments was not increased at a level commensurate with their increased responsibility. Consequently, many local governments face increasing budgetary deficits. Figure 1 illustrates the financial deficit for local governments after the 1993 tax reform. More than one-third of county-level governments have serious budget problems and over half of the local governments directly below the provincial level have budgets that merely cover the basic operations of public entities.
Public Land Leasing
One of the means by which local governments increase revenues in the absence of an effective taxation system is through public land leasing. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the state introduced market principles into the decision-making process regarding land use and allocation by separating land use rights from ownership. This separation promotes the development of land markets, which in turn have created tremendous impacts on real estate and housing development, urban land use and land allocation. Except for a short yet dramatic drop in the early 1990s due to a macroeconomic policy designed to prevent the national economy from overheating, the prices for access to land use rights and public land leasing rates have been increasing steadily.
Despite the significant number of land leasing transactions, the government closely regulates and controls the amount of land being leased by maintaining a monopoly on land supply (Ding 2003). Most land in rural areas still belongs to the collectives, and urban construction is prohibited on rural land unless it is first acquired by the state. Land developments that occur on collectively owned rural land are considered illegal, and administrative efforts such as monitoring and inspecting have been implemented to eliminate these violations.
General land use plans and regulations to preserve cultivated land further control the amount of land available for urban development. The land use plans determine the total amount of land that can be added to existing urbanized areas through an annual land supply quota. At the same time, China’s preservation policy for cultivated land influences both land supply and the location of land available for urban development. The Land Administration Law specifies that at least 80 percent of cultivated land should be designated as basic farmland and prohibited from land development. Land productivity is the dominant factor used to delineate the boundaries of basic farmland. Since most cities are located in areas with rich soil resources, farmland protection designations commonly exist in urbanizing areas. Thus farmland protection inevitably results in urban sprawl and leapfrog development patterns requiring costly infrastructure investments and land consumption.
Financing Local Government. As a result of the government’s regulations and monopoly on selling land use rights, local authorities use the public land leasing system to increase their revenues through land use conveyance fees. For instance, Hangzhou City, the capital of Zhejiang Province with a population of almost four million, is among the top five in per capita national income and GDP. The city generated land conveyance fees of more than six billion YMB in 2002, more than 20 percent of the total municipal government revenues.
Interestingly, these fees were generated largely from selling to commercial users the right to access the state-owned land, yet commercial land development represented only 15 percent of total land uses in newly developed areas. The rest of the land was allocated to users through negotiation in which the sale price either barely covered the costs of acquiring and improving the land, or land was offered free to generate competition for businesses and investments.
Local governments can raise enormous revenues from limited-market transactions of land use rights, in part because land conveyance fees represent lump-sum, up-front land rent payments for a leasing period and in part because local governments exercise their strong administrative powers to require farmers to sell their land at below-market rates. When the government later resells the land at market rates, the price could be more than 100 times the purchase price. After considering the costs of land improvement, however, net revenues may be only ten times the total cost of the land.
Rising land prices resulting from the government monopoly allow local governments to use the land as collateral to borrow money from banks. These loans plus the revenue generated from conveyance fees accounted for 40 to 50 percent of the Hangzhou municipal government budget in 2002. In turn these revenues were used to fund more than two-thirds of the city’s investments in infrastructure and urban services.
Hangzhou City specializes in textiles, tourism, construction and transportation, and generates substantial revenue from business and value-added taxes, although the city’s share of income generated through the public land leasing system is also large. Many smaller cities and towns with fewer commercial and business resources use land leasing directly through land conveyance fees or indirectly as collateral to support up to 80 or 85 percent of their total investments in urban initiatives. These smaller cities must turn to land to generate revenues to fuel economic growth, launch urban renewal projects, and provide infrastructure and urban services that were neglected for a long time prior to the reform era. Land-generated revenue is also used to improve the overall financial environment, attract businesses and investments, and support the reform and reallocation of state-owned enterprises.
Negative Consequences. Despite the importance of public land leasing for income generation, the practice of using this tool to finance local governments may have serious consequences in the long run. The fiscal incentives that compel local governments to control and monopolize the land markets will negatively impact real estate and housing development, industrialization and land use. Furthermore, land is a fixed resource and ultimately there will be no more land left to lease for revenue.
Increasing pressure to protect the rights of farmers also makes it more difficult and costly to acquire land from farmers. As a result, local governments must increase land prices or face reduced revenues from land leasing. Finally, not only does land scarcity and farmer compensation pose a challenge to income generation, but recent policy reform now permits land owned by a collective to enter the land market directly. This change will prevent local governments from acquiring collective lands and exacting conveyance fees for these transfers.
Taxation Reform: Principles and Challenges
The fiscal deficits experienced by local governments and the problems with the resulting public land leasing system provided the impetus for the central government to restructure the entire taxation system. That reform is based on four guiding principles: (1) simplify the tax system; (2) broaden the tax base; (3) lower tax rates; and (4) strictly administer tax collection and management. The central authorities in charge of tax policy and administration offer several specific goals with respect to property-related taxes.
Considerable debate exists over the merits of the proposed property-related tax reform. Despite the lack of consensus as to the best option, the costs and benefits must be assessed to effectively guide the development and implementation of a new property tax system. In addition, several outstanding issues need to be resolved in order to implement the proposed land and property tax reform.
The implementation of a value-based tax also will require the assembly and cataloguing of massive quantities of data, which historically have not been collected systematically. Furthermore, the data that have been collected are stored in different locations and in paper format. The Ministry of Land and Resources records and handles land-related data and information, whereas the Ministry of Construction is in charge of structure-related information. Matching related records from different ministries and digitizing this data will take years if not decades and will require a huge investment of resources.
The Chinese public has limited understanding of property taxation systems, so education will be required to avoid potentially significant political resistance. Capacity building within the Chinese government also will require professional training in appraisal, evaluation, appeals and collection to achieve effectiveness and efficiency in the new tax system.
Conclusions
Despite these unanswered issues and challenges, the Chinese government appears committed to implementing property taxation reform. The application of the widely used and successful gradualist approach for implementing policy and institutional reforms will ensure that the development and institutionalization of the property tax system proceeds on course. For example, data for industrial and commercial structures is more complete and of higher quality than data for residential structures. Furthermore, newer structures tend to have better records than older structures, and records are more complete for structures in urban areas than in rural areas. Thus, applying the property taxation system first to commercial and industrial structures, newly developed land with residential structures, and urban areas will allow the system to take hold before attempts are made to implement change in the areas with greater obstacles to overcome.
References
Bahl, Roy. 1997. Fiscal policy in China: Taxation and intergovernmental fiscal relations. Burlingame, CA: The 1990 Institute.
Development Research Center. 2005: Issues and challenges of China’s urban real estate administration and taxation. Report submitted to the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Ding, Chengri. 2003. Land policy reform in China: Assessment and prospects. Land Use Policy 20(2): 109-120.
Liu, Z. 2004. Zhongguo Suizi Gailan. Beijing: Jinji Chuban She. (China’s taxation system. Beijing: Economic Science Publisher).
Lu, S. 2003. YanJiu ZhengDi WenTi TaoShuo GaiKe ZhiLu (II). Beijing: Zhongguo Dadi Chuban She. (Examination of land acquisition issues: Search for reforms (II). Beijing: China Land Publisher.)
Chengri Ding is associate professor in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning at the University of Maryland, in College Park. He specializes in urban economics, housing and land studies, GIS and spatial analysis. He is also special assistant to the president of the Lincoln Institute for the Program on the People’s Republic of China.
SHARE
SHARE
SHARE
It is difficult to overstate how ongoing population loss has devastated Detroit. Between 1900 and 1950, when the rise of U.S. automobile manufacturing made the city one of America’s premier industrial and cultural centers, the population spiked from 300,000 to 1.85 million. Beginning in 1950, however, it began to fall. And its decline has been continuous to the present day, plummeting to just 700,000 in 2010, at a rate of descent nearly as swift as the rate of ascent in the first half of the 20th century.
Despite Detroit’s decades-long effort to keep pace with population loss by removing dilapidated housing stock, roughly a quarter of its 380,000 parcels are now abandoned, managed by the city or other public entities. As of July 2014, 114,000 properties have been razed, and 80,000 more are considered blighted (Austen 2014).
While the downtown is recovering and the suburbs remain vital, the “unfathomable dissolution of [the] built landscape” in vast areas of the city may shock the unsuspecting visitor (Austen 2014).
The first installment in a two-part series, this article considers the fiscal causes and repercussions of Detroit’s surplus of housing and vacant property: from the extent and location of abandoned homes and lots throughout Detroit to the downward spiral of house price declines leading to overassessment, property tax delinquency, and foreclosures; the public acquisition of that property; the pattern of land values across the city; and, finally, some potential ways to reconcile the remaining number of people with the amount of vacant and publicly held property. These measures range from targeting densely populated neighborhoods for redevelopment to establishing a greenbelt and reclaiming vacant parcels for public use as parks, forests, industrial buffers, retention ponds, and other open space (Austen 2014).
Factors Behind the Fall
The reasons for Detroit’s demise are numerous and perhaps too familiar. Federally subsidized transportation infrastructure, such as the Interstate highway system, facilitated rapid suburbanization, which was further enabled by permissive development codes. Racial tension, global economic forces, and corruption corroded what remained of the city proper. In the early stages of the malaise, higher-income residents, most of them Caucasian, left for the suburbs in search of a better quality of life, as shown in table1. By 1990, the African-American population had peaked as well and began to drop in the first decade of the 21st century. Beginning in the 1960s, Michigan auto manufacturing began its long, precipitous decline, disproportionately impacting Detroit and Flint. The loss of well-paying middle-class jobs further harmed the urban demographic and economic base, as households sought new employment opportunities elsewhere. Rising crime rates and continued erosion of public services induced another wave of exits.
Table 1 illustrates this downturn in the city’s demographic and economic conditions from 1950 through 2010. By 2012, according to government sources, median household income was just $25,000, less than half of the national median income. Poverty and unemployment rates were 38 and 27.5 percent, respectively. The labor force participation rate was 54 percent (compared to 63 percent nationwide), and for every 6.35 employed workers, there was one person receiving Social Security Disability benefits (compared to 1 of 12 nationwide). More than 34 percent of the city’s population received food stamps, and 81 percent of children in the Detroit Public Schools qualified for the Free and Reduced Lunch Program. Revenue streams became increasingly dependent on external sources, including nonresidents, as discussed in box 1. In 2013, when the city finally succumbed to the weight of accumulating fiscal challenges and declared bankruptcy, its debt and unfunded liabilities amounted to $18 billion—or $68,000 per household, which is about 2.7 times the median household income (Turbeville 2013).
The Failed Housing Market
The enormous excess supply of housing that accumulated over decades as a result of winnowing demand in Detroit corroded the value of that property. The real estate crisis of 2007–2008 dealt the final blow, resulting in the near-complete breakdown of Detroit’s housing market. By 2010, the average price of a residential property had plummeted to about $7,000 from $57,000 in 2006 (Hodge et al. 2014a). Detroit’s current excess of land and housing would likely suppress real estate price recovery in the coming years even if the population were to stabilize.
Property Tax Delinquency, Abandonment, and Public Acquisition of Property
Tax officials have not recalibrated assessment values to reflect house price declines. The resulting overassessment is as high as 80 percent (Hodge et al. 2014a), contributing to a general unwillingness to pay taxes, according to Alm et al. (2014). Their research also shows that additional factors such as high statutory tax rates and limited services such as public safety worsen this delinquency as well.
In the midst of the real estate crisis, property tax delinquency reached an alarming 50 percent (Alm et al. 2014). Figure 2 (p. 13) shows delinquency rates by neighborhood across the city in 2010. Property tax collection depends on a jurisdiction’s ability to impose sanctions for nonpayment of taxes, as noted by Langsdorf (1973). When real estate values collapse, taxing authorities have no workable enforcement mechanism; homeowners’ savings from nonpayment of property tax are greater than the value of the house they own and would lose in the instance of foreclosure. Further, proceeds from the sale of low-valued tax-foreclosed property are insufficient to cover back taxes owed and the government costs of initiating foreclosure proceedings.
Widespread failure to pay property taxes and the subsequent abandonment of homes has resulted in the public acquisition of thousands of properties throughout Detroit. Fifteen percent of the parcels within the 139-square-mile city are now empty, and nearly 25 percent of Detroit’s land area is now nontaxable, owned and managed by the city or some other public entity (Sands and Skidmore 2014), as illustrated in figure 3.
The Downward Spiral of Foreclosures
Currently, the number of properties flowing into public hands via tax foreclosure far outpaces the number of publicly held properties being purchased back by private taxpaying owners.
In Michigan, delinquent property taxes are subject to a 4 percent administration fee and 1 percent monthly interest on the delinquent amount computed at a non-compounded rate, beginning in the first month of nonpayment. After one year of delinquency, the city forfeits the property to county government, and the owner becomes subject to an additional 0.5 percent monthly interest charge. During this two-year period, owners may redeem their properties by paying all outstanding taxes and fees.
If property taxes go unpaid for more than two years, the Wayne County Treasurer initiates foreclosure proceedings. After a show cause hearing in the Circuit Court, the County Treasurer publicly auctions the foreclosed parcels. The starting bid equals the unpaid property taxes plus interest and penalties, and the proceeds are distributed proportionately to the taxing jurisdictions. If the property doesn’t sell at the first auction, the county lowers the minimum bid to $500 and holds a second auction. This procedure has led to further tax evasion, as some homeowners elect to ignore their tax bills with the expectation that they will be able to repurchase the parcel for $500 at the second auction.
Property that doesn’t sell at either auction may be transferred to a public body (city or state) or to a state or local land bank, or it may be held for a subsequent auction. County records indicate that 80 percent of the parcels sold to private buyers at auction over the past two years are once again delinquent on taxes (MacDonald 2013). Given that the tax delinquency rate is 67 percent for non-homestead property owners (Alm et al. 2014), it seems likely that a significant proportion of buyers at auction are absentee landlords who intend to reduce their operating expenses and increase their net rental income by never paying property taxes.
Property taxes are effectively optional on low-valued parcels as well. To minimize the backlog of tax-delinquent lots (MacDonald 2013), the county does not foreclose on homeowners who owe less than $1,600 in taxes and penalties in aggregate, effectively rendering these debts optional.
Expected revenue from the sale of low-valued parcels is insufficient to cover legal expenses associated with tax foreclosure and unpaid property tax balances. The end result is an increasing rate of delinquency and a growing inventory of unwanted property that ends up in the public sector, where it generates no revenue for the city.
Where to Go from Here?
Another wave of property tax-related foreclosures is expected in late 2014 and early 2015. What can be done to stabilize the situation?
Curbing Property Tax Delinquency
As mentioned, delinquency will abate when tax payers perceive that they receive commensurate returns for their money. Thus, improving the tax-service package by upgrading core services such as public safety will reduce evasion and lateness (Alm et al. 2014). Under the leadership of recently elected Mayor Mike Duggan, city government is taking steps to improve basic public service provision and put its fiscal house in order. For example, just 35,000 of 88,000 streetlights currently work, so Duggan plans to install 2,400 functioning streetlights per month (Austen 2014). He also increased the number of operating buses from 143 to 190, and improved snow plowing during the particularly harsh winter.
Lowering tax rates would modestly reduce delinquency as well (Alm et al. 2014). Roughly double the regional average, Detroit tax rates are at the state’s maximum of 67 mills and 85 mills per assessed value for homestead and non-homestead properties, respectively. While a reduction would improve the competitive position of the city relative to other communities in the region, currently there is no discussion of reducing property tax rates.
Aligning assessed values more closely with actual market conditions will also reduce delinquency. Mayor Duggan recently promised to lower assessments by 5 to 20 percent across the city to reconcile them with state guidelines. However, Duggan’s promised reductions are just a small fraction of the 80 percent cut needed to bring assesment to market levels, according to Hodge et al. (2014a).
Removing Land from the Market
In the absence of robust demand for land, which seems unlikely in the near future, the excess must be removed from the market for a period of time in order for real estate value to improve broadly across the city. Given that public entities now hold so much property, it is within the power of government authorities to credibly remove it from the market. Without this type of policy action, the possibility that these parcels could be quickly transferred to the private sector serves to hamper price recovery.
Currently, public lands are held by many public entities. Authorities from the City of Detroit, Wayne County, and state government are working to consolidate these parcels under a single entity that can manage them more effectively. Detroit Future City (2010) details the extent of the fragmented ownership of public lands:
——–
Public land in Detroit is held by many separate agencies, including city, county, and state agencies, as well as autonomous or quasi-governmental entities such as the Detroit Public Schools, the Detroit Housing Commission, and the Detroit Economic Growth Corporation. Few other cities have such fragmented holding of their public land inventory. There is no consistency of policy, procedure, or mission among these agencies, while many are hamstrung by burdensome legal requirements and complex procedures. The Department of Planning and Development controls the largest number of properties, yet its ability to do strategic disposition is constrained by procedural obstacles, including the need to obtain City Council approval for all transactions, however small and insignificant from a citywide perspective.
——–
While this consolidation process is necessary, it is not sufficient. Financial resources are required to remove blight and implement land use plans. City leaders are focused mainly on strategies to return these parcels to private ownership. If they can stimulate greater interest in Detroit property, this approach might be viable.
Indeed, opportunities for private ownership are emerging in the central business district (CBD). Daniel Gilbert, founder of Quicken Loans, has moved his headquarters to downtown Detroit and invested $1.3 billion in city real estate (Forbes 2014). And downtown renewal has led to substantial rental price increases (Christie 2014).
Land values are very high in the CBD, as depicted in figure 4 (p. 16) by the black parcels, which represent the very highest land values on the map. Detroit’s land value gradient is very steep, however. While several areas within the donut around the CBD have retained some worth, land values plunge rapidly as distance from the CBD increases, though they rise again near the city’s border, probably because amenities such as shopping are available in the nearby suburbs.
Given the weak demand outside the CBD, it may be more effective to determine which publicly held properties should return to private taxpaying parties, which properties should be taken off the market for a decade or two, with the option of returning land to the market should conditions change, and which should be permanently removed from the market.
The 2012 master plan, as outlined by Detroit Future City, calls for the reclamation of land for parks, forests, industrial buffers, greenways, retention ponds, community gardens, and even campgrounds (Austen 2014). Full implementation of this ambitious proposal requires significant financial resources. But consider how state and federal authorities intervened in the last major episode of mass tax foreclosure. During the Great Depression, many homesteaders on marginal agricultural lands in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin were unable to pay their property taxes, and this default resulted in a mass wave of tax delinquency, foreclosure, abandonment, and eventual forfeiture. In these states, county governments frequently became the owners of thousands of acres, much of which was eventually sold to the state and federal governments. The six national forests in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, as well as the region’s numerous state forests, all have origins in this mass land abandonment of the Depression Era, as state and federal authorities pieced together a patchwork of adjacent lands purchased from counties eager to sell off their tax-forfeited property.
Today, state and federal authorities have no taste for a Detroit “bailout.” But history suggests that state and federal governments could help Detroit regain fiscal viability by purchasing patchworks of unwanted parcels, making payments in lieu of taxes, as is typical for other publicly owned lands, and then using the land for the benefit of the general public. Potential uses are mapped out in the aforementioned city master plan which the second installment of this series will explore. A federal, state, and local government partnership to reclaim these properties could help stabilize the land market and generate a revenue stream for the city and the other overlying taxing jurisdictions (including the state government via the state education tax). Property value recovery in combination with downtown reinvestment, continued efforts to improve Detroit’s tax-service package and remove blight, and long-run investment in Detroit’s human and social capital are essential elements of a sustainable Detroit recovery.
————————
Box 1: Targeting Nonresidents for Revenue
Detroit’s revenue streams have become increasingly dependent on external sources, including nonresidents, as its population and economic base have declined. This shift occurred in part because over time Michigan state legislatures empowered the City of Detroit to use tax-exporting strategies to help shore up weakening fiscal conditions and deal with massive structural changes to the regional economy. While there were periods during which it appeared that Detroit was on the cusp of recovery, various forces prevented “escape velocity.”
Today, the City of Detroit relies on the income tax, property tax, casino wagering tax, state revenue sharing, a utility user’s tax, federal grants, and various fees and licenses to fund public services. Of these, the casino wagering tax and the city income tax were adopted to bolster fading revenues from more traditional sources.
The casino wagering tax, based on gamers’ winning receipts, has become particularly important to the City of Detroit over the last decade, as shown in figure 2, which summarizes trends in the city’s major revenue sources from 1960 through 2012. The state legislature authorized casino gaming activity and the wagering tax in Detroit in 1996, to help the city address its fiscal challenges. By 2001, casino construction had been completed. The $180 million in additional annual revenues helped to stave off financial pressures even as other sources, such as income taxes and state shared revenues, were in decline. Up to 85 percent of gamers at the three major Detroit casinos are nonresidents, according to recent reports and interviews with gaming experts (Miklojcik 2014).
Since 1963, the city income tax has represented Detroit’s largest and, for a number of years, fastest-growing revenue source. At the time of adoption, the majority of the income tax was paid by city residents. As Detroit’s population has declined, however, the income tax on nonresidents who work in the city has become an increasing share of the city income tax base, composed of wages and salaries earned at a city-based job. The tax rate is 2.4 percent for city residents, whereas nonresidents pay 1.2 percent. While corporations and partnerships also pay an income tax, it is a very small portion of total revenues collected. According to Scorsone and Skidmore (2014), about half of the city income tax revenue in Detroit is paid by nonresidents.
State revenue sharing continues to play a critical role in Detroit’s finances, though population loss has diminished even this income source. In Michigan, state government collects a statewide sales tax and then shares a portion of the proceeds with municipal governments. Sales tax revenues are allocated to local governments based on constitutional provisions as well as state statute. The constitutional portion of revenue sharing is based on each jurisdiction’s share of the total state population. Given the dwindling number of Detroit residents, this portion of state revenue sharing has been falling for decades. The city experienced significant growth in total revenue sharing funds through the 1970s and 1980s, due to increases in statutory revenue sharing, which is distributed by formulae that have been changed by legislators many times in recent decades. But new changes to the statute combined with stagnation in the sales tax led to declining growth and eventual decline in revenue sharing for cities across the entire state in the 1990s. As Michigan entered a decade-long recession, this decline continued for most local jurisdictions, including Detroit, through the 2000s.
Some have pointed to revenue sharing reductions as a major source of stress for the City of Detroit, and a major catalyst for the bankruptcy. However, these declines affected all cities that received revenue sharing in Michigan; while cuts to revenue sharing likely influenced the timing of Detroit’s bankruptcy, they were not the ultimate cause. Further, it is important to note that revenue sharing for Detroit represents a net positive transfer of funds from the rest of the state to the city. According to the 2007 economic census, retail sales in the City of Detroit were $3.2 billion, or about 2.9 percent of the $109 billion in the State of Michigan.
In 2012, total state revenue sharing to all municipalities in Michigan was about $1 billion, and Detroit’s share of the total was $172 million, or 17.2 percent. Given that Detroit represents just 3 percent of total state retail sales in Michigan, one can conclude that the majority of state revenue sharing that flowed to Detroit originated from retail transactions that occurred outside the city.
As of 2014, the City of Detroit had approximately a $1 billion General Fund, considerably lower than in 2002 when revenue peaked at $1.4 billion. A 30 percent drop in revenues over time without a commensurate cut in expenditures led to the Detroit fiscal crisis and the eventual declaration of bankruptcy in 2013. By 2012, Detroit had borrowed more than $1 billion in an attempt to stave off default and a liquidity crisis (Michigan Department of Treasury 2013).
————————
About the Author
Mark Skidmore is professor of economics at Michigan State University, where he holds the Morris Chair in State and Local Government Finance and Policy, with joint appointments in the Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics and the Department of Economics.
References
Alm, J., T. Hodge, G. Sands, and M. Skidmore. 2014. “Detroit Property Tax Delinquency—Social Contract in Crisis.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper.
Austen, B. 2014. “The Post-Apocalyptic Detroit.” New York Times, July 13. http://nyti.ms/1mFu3Jn
Center for Educational Performance and Information. Accessed in July 2014 from www.michigan.gov/cepi/0,4546,7-113-21423_30451—,00.html
City of Detroit. 2013. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. www.detroitmi.gov/Portals/0/docs/finance/CAFR/Final%202012%20Detroit%20Financial%20Statements.pdf
Christie, Les. 2014. “I’ve Been Priced Out of Downtown Detroit.” CNN Money, May 27. http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/27/real_estate/downtown-detroit/index.html
Detroit Future City. 2010. Detroit Future City Strategic Framework Book. http://detroitfuturecity.com/framework
Forbes. 2014. “World’s Billionaires.” www.forbes.com/profile/daniel-gilbert
Hodge, T., D. McMillen, G. Sands, and M. Skidmore. 2014a. “Tax Base Erosion and Inequity from Michigan’s Assessment Growth Limit: The Case of Detroit.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper.
Hodge, T., G. Sands, and M. Skidmore. 2014b. “The Land Value Gradient in a (Nearly) Collapsed Urban Real Estate Market.” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Working Paper.
Landsdorf, K. 1973. “Urban Decay, Property Tax Delinquency: A Solution in St. Louis.” The Urban Lawyer 5: 729–748.
MacDonald, C. 2013. “Half of Detroit Property Owners Don’t Pay Taxes.” The Detroit News, February 12.
Michigan Department of Treasury. 2013. Supplemental Documentation of the Detroit Financial Review Team. www.michigan.gov/documents/treasury/Review_Team_Report_Supplemental_2–19-13_411866_7.pdf
Michigan Department of Treasury. 2010. Real Property Tax Forfeiture and Foreclosure. www.michigan.gov/taxes/0,4676,7-238-43535_55601—,00.html
Miklojcik, J. 2014. President of Michigan Consultants. Information shared in personal interview with Eric Scorsone.
National Public Radio. 2014. “Chinese Investors Aren’t Snatching up Detroit Property Yet.” www.npr.org/2014/03/04/285711091/chinese-investors-arent-snatching-up-detroit-property-yet
Sands, G. and M. Skidmore. 2014. “Making Ends Meet: Options for Property Tax Reform in Detroit.” Forthcoming in Journal of Urban Affairs.
Scorsone, E. and M. Skidmore. 2014. “Blamed for Incompetence and Lack of Foresight and Left to Die.” Response to William Tabb’s “If Detroit Is Dead Some Things Need to Be Said at the Funeral.” Forthcoming in Journal of Urban Affairs.
Turbeville, W. 2013. “The Detroit Bankruptcy.” Demos, November 20. www.demos.org/publication/detroit-bankruptcy
SHARE
Since first holding democratic elections at the national and provincial levels in 1994, South Africa has undertaken far-reaching constitutional changes. Arguably, the most fundamental transformation is taking place at the local government level, where the divisions created by apartheid were most severe. These changes were set in motion by the Local Government Transition Act of 1993, and during 1994-1995 the formerly racially segregated urban local authorities were amalgamated into a variety of non-racial transitional councils:
In non-metropolitan areas, the former regional services councils were transformed into district councils, thereby retaining a secondary tier of local government in rural areas.
In March 1998 the national government published the White Paper on Local Government, which set out its vision for the future of local government. The White Paper resulted in passage of the Local Government Demarcation Act and the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act. Under the Demarcation Act, the Municipal Demarcation Board was established to assign new boundaries for the different categories of municipal governments throughout the country. The present 843 transitional municipalities are to be severely reorganized after the local elections in November 2000 into 284 newly demarcated municipalities (see Table 1).
Within the six metropolitan areas to be established, single-tier metropolitan municipalities will replace the TMCs and TMLCs. In the non-metropolitan areas 47 district municipalities will replace the present 42 district councils. Each district municipality will consist of two or more (primary-tier) local municipalities to replace the present local and rural councils. A typical future local municipality will consist of a number of neighboring towns and their rural hinterland. In sparsely populated rural areas where the establishment of a local municipality is not viable (designated as district management areas), a district municipality will be the only form of local government.
Municipal Finance Reform
The structural reforms at the local government level also require reform of municipal finances. The government is currently preparing two important pieces of legislation in this regard, the Local Government: Property Rates Bill (dealing exclusively with property taxation) and the Municipal Finance Management Bill.
Section 229 of South Africa’s Constitution guarantees “rates on property” (i.e., the property tax) as an autonomous source of revenue for municipalities. It states that the “power of a municipality to impose rates on property…may be regulated by national legislation.” National framework legislation regarding the property tax is indeed needed for the following reasons:
Therefore, the Local Government: Property Rates Bill, currently in its 10th draft, is to be welcomed, at least in principle. It has not yet been published for public comment and may be further amended. However, when this bill is eventually passed into law, it will regulate the levying, assessing and collection of property taxes by municipalities.
Policy Issues in the Property Rates Bill
Diversity of Tax Bases
Urban municipalities generally have a choice between three tax bases, which are spread remarkably evenly throughout the country:
Earlier drafts of the Property Rates Bill retained this diversity as well as local choice. However, clause 5(1) of the 10th draft of the bill now states that a rate levied on property “must be…an amount in the Rand (South Africa’s currency) determined by the municipality on the improved value of the property.” Although it seems that government has opted for a single tax base (i.e., improved capital value), the bill goes on to provide that a rate levied on the “improved value of property may be composed of separate amounts on the site value of the property and the value of the improvements.” By implication, therefore, composite rating and site rating have been retained (if the amount in the Rand on improvements is set at zero).
Extension of the Tax Base and Possible Exclusions
In principle a municipality may tax “all property in its municipal area,” including areas where the property tax has not been levied before, such as agricultural and tribal land. However, the bill also allows a municipality to exclude a category or categories of property from rating. These excluded properties need not be reflected in the valuation roll.
McCluskey and Franzsen (2000) suggest several reasons why municipalities should include all properties in the valuation roll, and then allow specific exemptions rather than exclusions from the taxing process. First, it can be difficult to justify and defend exclusions constitutionally; second, it is politically easier to phase out an exemption than to introduce a tax on formerly excluded properties; and third, if properties are not valued and thus not reflected in the valuation roll, the extent of the tax base relinquished through exclusions is not known.
“Public infrastructure” is to be excluded from the tax base. This will have significant implications, particularly for municipalities with large tracts of land owned by public utility companies, and may need to be reconsidered in light of privatization. International practice suggests that public utilities should be rated at least on their operational land.
Differentiation and Phasing-in of Rates
Current legislation only provides for rate uniformity throughout a municipal area. However, municipalities sometimes achieve effective differentiation by granting arbitrary rebates to certain properties on the basis of zoning. For example, all improved residential properties in the Pretoria TMLC are presently granted a 35 percent rebate.
The bill provides that different rates may be levied for different categories of property according to use, status or location-a critical point in light of the extension of municipal boundaries into rural areas. For example, it would be possible for a future local municipality (comprising various small towns, commercial farmland and tribal land) to have the following different property categories (and therefore different tax rates):
However, a municipality will have to justify its differential rate schedule in an annually revised rates policy document presented to all taxpayers. Although municipalities may be permitted to treat ratepayers differently, they must justify this action. The bill also allows for the phasing-in of rates over a three-year period with respect to property not subject to property taxation before 1 July 1999 (e.g., tribal land). In certain instances the period may be extended for a further three years.
Tax Rates
The bill (clause 5(2)) states that municipalities may set their own tax rates. However, the Minister for Local Government, in concurrence with the Minister of Finance, may set a limit or rate cap on the amount. Apart from reducing municipalities’ fiscal autonomy, rate caps set nationally may not reflect differences in taxing capacity that exist between municipalities (see Table 2).
An alternative, and more practical, “capping” measure that has been inserted in the 10th draft (clause 5(3)(a)(ii)) is to limit the annual tax rate increases, not unlike one part of Proposition 13 in California.
Extension of Property Tax to Tribal Land
Extending property taxation to tribal land is an area of major political concern and is fraught with practical problems. “Ownership” of tribal land is not uniform, and some tribal authorities are not prepared to accept any form of local government within their area of jurisdiction, let alone any form of taxation of “their” land. Identifying the taxpayer may be problematic. Furthermore, formal ownership of tribal land seldom reflects the complex system of tenure rights of the individuals entitled to the use of that land. Even if it were possible to identify a taxpayer and establish an assessed value for (tribal) “property,” the abject poverty and inability of residents in many tribal areas to pay any tax will have to be considered. In fact, few tribal areas presently receive municipal services that could justify the introduction of a property tax.
Rates Policy
Clause 13 of the bill requires municipalities to adopt a rates policy and then levy rates accordingly. This is a welcome change. The rates policy, which is to be reviewed annually, must explain and justify the provision of exemptions, rebates, reductions and relief for the poor. This policy should significantly enhance the transparency, efficiency and accountability of municipal councils, and perhaps encourage compliance.
Valuation Quality Control
Another welcome aspect in the bill concerns monitoring valuation quality for equity and consistency across the country. However, the bill (clause 64) confers this responsibility on the Minister responsible for local government. McCluskey and Franzsen (2000) suggest that an independent and professional valuation agency, preferably at the national level, should be established for this highly technical task. Such agencies exist in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. In South Africa, this type of agency should perform the following primary tasks:
The monitoring service could well be expanded to provide valuation advice, expertise and data to municipalities. Such an agency could also undertake valuations of property for other taxes levied at the national level, such as estate and gift taxes.
Conclusion
The Local Government: Property Rates Bill should provide a solid framework for property taxation as South Africa begins to implement its new local government structure. If municipalities adhere to the principles articulated in the bill, a more uniform, equitable and efficient property tax system will play an even more important role in the future.
Riël C.D. Franzsen is professor in the Department of Mercantile Law at the University of South Africa in Pretoria, South Africa. His research on property tax reform in South Africa has been supported in part by the Lincoln Institute.
References
Budget Review 2000: Chapter 7. South Africa Department of Finance. http://www.finance.gov.za/b/budget_00/default.htm
Franzsen, R.C.D. 1999. Property taxation in South Africa. In W.J. McCluskey (ed.) Property Tax: An International Comparative Review. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 337-357.
Local Government: Property Rates Bill. 2000. 10th draft. South Africa Department of Provincial and Local Government.
McCluskey, W.J., and R.C.D. Franzsen. 2000. Some policy issues regarding the Local Government: Property Rates Bill. SA Mercantile Law Journal 12: 209-223.
SHARE
To what extent are problems of distressed urban areas attributable to the property tax, and how can changes in property taxation help remedy urban decline? Political leaders, policy analysts and public finance experts gathered to discuss this complex and controversial issue during a Lincoln Institute seminar in New Haven on March 15.
John DeStefano, Jr., now in his second term as Mayor of New Haven, opened the session with a strong indictment of the property tax as a cause of urban ills. Described by the New York Times as “a leading spokesman for a growing number of people who believe Connecticut’s reliance on the property tax is harming not just the state’s cities, but its entire economy,” Mayor DeStefano argued that high relative property taxes in Connecticut were a direct cause of the state’s decline in population and jobs. From 1990 to 1995 Connecticut lost over 12,000 residents, while New Haven and Hartford suffered the two steepest population declines of any U.S. cities during that period.
His concern was shared by representatives from the Capital Region Council of Governments, the Regional Growth Partnership of South Central Connecticut, and the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, which distributed a report stating that overdependence on the property tax was “reducing quality of life in all of Connecticut’s cities and towns.”
How can this widespread assumption linking property taxes to urban ills be tested, and what changes in the sources of local revenue could encourage urban revitalization? It may be that shifting demographic and economic patterns, such as the large defense industry cutbacks that have reduced Connecticut’s supply of high-wage jobs, have more to do with employment and population loss than does the property tax. If so, changing the property tax will not address the underlying causes of urban decline. Property taxes in Connecticut are not as far from the national average as a percentage of personal income as they might appear in absolute dollars (see chart).
Will lowering property taxes enhance economic growth if it is accompanied by an increase in other forms of taxation? Meeting growing needs in urban areas with a declining economic base is a problem of dependence on locally based taxation, not a problem of property taxation alone. Shifting from one local tax to another will not necessarily assist the neediest cities that have the least amount of revenue to draw upon.
Alternative Revenue Sources
What revenue sources can offer alternatives to the property tax as it is currently structured? The property tax base in the U.S. initially included real property and personal property, tangibles and intangibles alike; the restriction to land and buildings was the result of nineteenth-century reform efforts. Seminar speaker C. Lowell Harriss urged that these two portions of the property tax base be considered separately. The first, a tax on land values, deserves even more intensive use than it is getting, he argued, whereas the second, a tax on man-made capital such as buildings, machinery and inventories, warrants even more condemnation than it receives.
Donald Reeb of the State University of New York at Albany examined the actual process of obtaining state and local support for such a shift. He described successful efforts to permit Amsterdam, New York, to change from a single-rate property tax to a graded tax with a higher rate on land than on building value.
Robert Schwab of the University of Maryland discussed his own study of Pittsburgh’s two-rate tax, with buildings taxed five times as heavily as land. This case has particular interest for the issue of causality–whether or not the tax itself deserves credit for improving the local economy. Schwab drew a subtle distinction between finding that the tax had caused an increase in building and investment and that the tax had not impeded development. Although he felt that his study could not support the first proposition, he endorsed the second and emphasized its importance. This led to discussion of the special nature of a tax on land, which avoids the excess burden caused by most other forms of taxation in terms of lost efficiency.
Ronald Fisher of Michigan State University challenged the perception that heavy property taxation alone was the main problem for Connecticut’s economy. He pointed out that the state presents a complex mix of high personal income, relatively modest governmental expenditures, low income taxes, and consequent reliance on sales and property taxes. Connecticut only introduced a state personal income tax in 1991, and that tax has been the object of intense political protest and repeal efforts. In discussing various revenue sources, including local income taxes, local sales taxes and user charges, Fisher also questioned whether the absence of effective regional government in Connecticut could be partially responsible for the disparities between distressed central cities and prosperous suburban areas.
Tax-base and Revenue Sharing
Further discussion probed options for tax-base and revenue sharing as ways to reduce the tax burden on urban residents while meeting city revenue needs. The Connecticut Property Tax Reform Commission has recommended simply increasing state aid. Another option would reduce unfunded mandates in areas such as welfare and education.
A third alternative uses state funds to allow property taxes to serve as a credit against income taxes for low-income homeowners–and a refund to those with no income tax liability. Termed a “circuit breaker,” it is designed to prevent property taxes from exceeding a fixed proportion of income. The credit sometimes extends to renters as well. Over half the states provide some form of circuit breaker, but most are limited to senior citizens.
Lee Samowitz, a Bridgeport state representative, presented a proposal for regional service districts financed by a portion of the commercial and industrial tax base. Direct tax-base sharing of this type has its longest history in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, which for 25 years has pooled 40 percent of the growth in the industrial and commercial property tax.
Yet such programs face formidable political hurdles, in part because most areas have fragmented or weak regional governments. According to economists Howard Chernick and Andrew Reschovsky, “Despite its success in Minnesota, the prospects for the establishment of tax-base sharing plans in other metropolitan areas are poor. The political representatives of those communities that would be net ‘losers’ under a tax-base sharing plan, or who believe they will be net losers at some point in the near future, will oppose tax-base sharing.”
Political obstacles have impeded plans for tax-base sharing in recent years in a number of states. However, the discussion in New Haven made it clear that property tax reform will become increasingly important as an element in the search for regional solutions to urban problems.
Joan Youngman, senior fellow at the Lincoln Institute, is an attorney and expert on legal problems of valuation for property taxation. She develops and teaches courses on land taxation and regulation issues.
References
Chernick and Reschovsky. “Urban Fiscal Problems: Coordinating Actions Among Governments,” Government Finance Review, vol 11, no. 4 (August 1995) p. 17ff.
Connecticut Conference of Municipalities. Property Tax Relief and Reform, Public Policy Report #96-03. March 1996. 900 Chapel St., 9th floor, New Haven, CT 06510-2807. 203/498-3000.
Fisher, Ronald C. State and Local Public Finance. Chicago: Irwin, 1996.
SHARE
The Lincoln Institute has long been involved in international activities that deal with land policy and land taxation issues. In the 1970s those activities focused mainly on training and education. For example, Institute faculty have taught joint courses in land and tax policy issues with the International Center for Land Policy Studies and Training (formerly the Land Reform Training Institute) in Taiwan for nearly 30 years. Sponsorship of international congresses on land policy in the 1980s involved the Lincoln Institute in the dissemination of research and analysis by colleagues from both industrial and developing countries. This work heralded further international expansion in the 1990s involving both the Institute’s training programs and its support for research and analysis, particularly in developing countries.
Over the past ten years, the Institute has expanded its program of training and research in Latin America that deals with planning, property taxation, urban development, and land markets. Its program in China, begun in 2001, involves government officials, academics, and researchers with a focus on urban land markets, land taxation, and city expansion issues. The Institute has been active in many Eastern European countries, where it has been involved mainly in training on tax policy and administration. It also has contacts and modest levels of involvement in other countries, including Cuba and South Africa, which face particularly demanding or unique land and tax policy challenges.
The initial motivation for the Institute’s international work was to share its knowledge and expertise in land policy issues with others, as in transition economies seeking to establish land markets and property tax regimes. The Institute provided training in land market fundamentals and policy issues, and in the technical requirements of databases containing cadastral, ownership, and development information.
As the Institute expanded its activities abroad, academic and policy research on urban development and local public finance documented many commonalities across countries in the development patterns of large cities, in the behavior of households and firms, and in the tradeoffs households and firms face when making decisions about location, transport, space consumption, tenure choice, and local services. Predictions based on urban economic theory proved to be robust across both rich and poor countries.
The consequence of this commonality of problems and behavior is that the flow of knowledge is no longer in one direction. Solutions to problems in one city can help inform policy makers in other cities about new approaches that have worked elsewhere. For example, experience with new ways to use benefit charges to finance infrastructure, design exclusive bus lanes, structure new development, or reform housing in one country is of great interest to others. International experience also reinforces old lessons, such as the advantages of property taxation as a local revenue source or the impact of infrastructure on development.
In sum, the Institute’s international work has enriched its own knowledge and expertise as much as it has benefited those who have participated in our training and research programs.
SHARE
The development of new land and tax systems in countries in political and economic transition in Central and Eastern Europe reflects a unique array of historical, social, political, and economic circumstances. While all transitional countries seeking admission to the European Union (EU) have initiated comprehensive reforms to encourage free markets and democratic governments, the three Baltic nations—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—made privatization and restitution of property rights a prime objective immediately after their independence in the early 1990s. These actions, together with a desire to stimulate real estate markets and capture tax revenues for improved public services, made them the first of the transitional countries to introduce value-based taxation of real property.
