There remains one – and only one – way to fix Allegheny County’s long-running property assessment mess. And that is, as we have advocated for decades, to conduct a new and full reassessment of all taxable properties and then maintain the process on a regular basis.
Yet those in positions of political power, and those hoping to hold such a position or positions, either steadfastly weave and wobble, hem and haw or outright misrepresent the consequences of a new reassessment and a regular regimen of reassessments thereafter.
Simply put, the Pennsylvania Constitution mandates uniform taxation. And the only way to achieve that is to, within the current property tax assessment system, conduct regular assessments.
The state Legislature, which could order such a regular statewide process, continues to sit on its hands. Local (i.e., county officials) could do the right thing and order such reassessments but, generally, have not.
And sadly, that sound public policy malaise has become the hallmark of the race for the new Allegheny County chief executive.
One candidate, a self-described “progressive,” once supported regular reassessments. But that candidate (last week, during a debate), began to hedge.
“We have a system right now that isn’t working,” the candidate said. “It needs to be re-evaluated, reimagined. We need to design a new, modern, transparent, and fair system, and all policies are going to have to be on the table in order to do that.”
And only in the process of designing that “new” system, if it’s determined a reassessment is needed, would she support it.
That’s a far cry from her unequivocal reassessment support expressed in April.
But in the same debate, the second candidate, a self-described “centrist,” did not waver from his oft-stated opposition.
“Reassessment is stealth for ‘I’m going to raise your taxes,’” this candidate said during the debate.
But that’s pure demagoguery espoused for political expediency.
Done properly, regular reassessments indeed will see those who for too long have been under-assessed pay what they should. Those who have been over-assessed for too long will see their property taxes fall; they’ll no longer be paying the freight of the under-assessed.
And an anti-windfall provision will serve as a governor on the kind of wild property tax spikes the anti-reassessment crowd is claiming will occur.
Yet the same candidate added in last week’s debate that “The first thing we have to do is fix the broken system in place.”
But the only way to “fix the broken system in place” is to return to the regular reassessment order that has been cast aside over the last decade.
A little background here, as the Post-Gazette reminds:
“In the absence of a reassessment, the county has been using what’s known as a common-level ratio [CLR], the figure used to calculate current property values based on the year of the last assessment — now more than a decade ago. Last year, a judge ruled that the county had been using a miscalculated and inflated figure, and lowered it. …”
“The common-level ratio is only used to determine property values in years when there isn’t an assessment. If the county were to do a reassessment next year, the common-level ratio would not have to be used until the following year,” the P-G reports.
But “fixing” the CLR is a major part of the problem, as Jake Haulk, president-emeritus of the Allegheny Institute, has repeatedly documented.
The common level ratio is a median value, the Ph.D. economist reminds.
“That means half the assessments to sales price are above and half below. And that is based on sales that actually happen.
“But even if it represents the whole set of properties, it means half are underpaying and half overpaying,” Haulk says.
“There is an explicit violation of the [state] Constitution and the use of the CLR points that out clearly.
“Lawyers who do [property assessment] appeals are not in favor of keeping assessments up to date. They talk a good game but they will not push the notion of regular reassessments,” the think tank veteran says.
“A plague on them and politicians who keep them in business,” Haulk says.
Sans regular reassessments, the unconstitutional inequities in the property tax system will only grow. And sound public policy, and the public weal with it, will continue to be ignored.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
