The wrong way to estimate land value

I do appreciate that our wealthy colleagues at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy have compiled and published estimates of residential land value for states and major metropolitan areas. I just wish they had been more careful.

Geoists are often challenged to demonstrate that it’s feasible to estimate land value.  It’s a fair question, and we have good responses. Assessor Ted Gwartney wrote an accessible paper on the subject, as did Alex Anas and William Vickery (neither on the ‘net, afaik, but if anyone asks I will try to dig up the cites). There are several valid approaches, depending on the specific situation.  For instance, in an area with many teardowns, the value of land is the purchase price of the teardown parcel, plus the cost of demolition. Other methods are used where there’s more vacant land, or new development is taking place, or land is being condemned for public purposes, or land ground leasing is common, etc.  Once you have values for a few parcels, you estimate the remainder by comparing their size, location, and other characteristics to those you have good numbers for.

Lincoln’s estimates illustrate why it’s wrong to estimate land value by subtracting depreciated improvement value from total parcel value. They have undertaken to estimate the land and improvement value for the average single family home in each state, for each calendar quarter since 1975, most recently for the first quarter of 2009.  And they did it by subtracting depreciated improvement value from total value.  Thus they find that the average house in Illinois sits on a lot worth $12,480,  compared to $23,260 in South Dakota. Montana’s average is $69,949, Arizona’s $90,040.  These numbers simply make no sense.

Their MSA estimates are a bit less bizarre, but don’t seem consistent with the state-level estimates.  One reason may be that for the metro’s they could use American Housing Survey information.

It is good that somebody is trying to estimate some portion of land value.  It would be even better if it were done reasonably well.

Lincoln are also starting to compile some comprehensive information on how and how much the ownership of property is taxed in the various states. So far the information seems quite limited, but eventually, if carefully done, it may be exceedingly useful.

btw, with this post I am initiating a new category, “dependent scholars.”  This is to distinguish the employees and grantees of Lincoln (and many many other institutions) from actual independent scholars.

Review of Lincoln’s new “LVT” book

edited by Richard F. Dye and Richard W. England
Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2009

“[E]conomists agree on a great many things, but tend only to discuss the things about which they disagree,” writes Lincoln Institute (of Land Policy) chief Gregory K. Ingram in the Foreword to this new book.  And if one is disinclined to conspiracy theory, that might be the reason that the Single Tax and its various derivations don’t get much attention in the academic world.

A book about experience with the Single Tax would, of course, be a short one, since we don’t have any  experience of a modern economy in which the only tax is one that collects virtually all the land rent. Rather, this work examines some cases in which land has been taxed at a higher percentage of value than buildings and other improvements.

Continue reading Review of Lincoln’s new “LVT” book