TAXATION OF DAIRY FARMS 5 



The classification that appears in "Valuation Lists" is associated with owner- 

 ship as well as with the kind of real property. Each piece of property for which 

 a separate title exists is listed. Farmers and others who hold title to more than 

 one piece of real property' are well aware of this. 



The notion of ownership has pertinent connotations in this regard. There is 

 the notion which applies to the farm as an operating unit; there is the notion 

 that applies to the farm as an aggregate of legal rights; there is the notion that 

 applies to the farm as a unit for taxing purposes. The notions are seldom uni- 

 form although they may be compatible. 



In arriving at values, the common practice seems to be to first consider each 

 parcel^ or lot^ with its buildings as a salable unit at an over-all figure; a farm, 

 with 50 acres and buildings, at $3000 for assessing purposes. The law provides, 

 however, that land and buildings must be separately valued so that the 

 next step is to break down the over-all into unit values that add up to 

 $3000; e.g., house $800, dairy barn $800, shed $100, land 50 acres at ($3000- 

 ($800 + $800 + $100) = $1300. Reason sugg'ests that the land, however, ought 

 to be worth $1500. Either the total has to be increased to $3200 which appears 

 a trifle high for the place, or buildings have to be reduced; and house and barn 

 at $700 each seems a little low. The choices are evident. Which shall it be? 

 As one assessor cutely phrased it, "The whole is not equal to the sum of the 

 parts." 



The average of assessors' valuations on dairy farm real estate in the study 

 broke down as follows: House $1767; Other Buildings $2125; Land $3189; or a 

 total real estate valuation of $7081. It is perhaps coincidence, but of the total 

 real estate valuation, 55 percent was on buildings and of the buildings 55 percent 

 was on the work units — the barn, silo, sheds, etc. 



Around the state, using county data for purposes of comparison, some interest- 

 ing similarities and differences were observed. One should bear in mind that the 

 groups are' estimates based on a small number of dairy farms in each county 

 and that the true average might be this value or another somewhere near it. 

 The high average real estate valuation in Essex County is due to the inclusion 

 of several estates; the mansions were excluded from the buildings groups but 

 there was no way of sub-dividing the land into that which was "farm" and that 

 which was "estate." The range of $3000 around the state average with the Valley 

 counties of Franklin, Hampshire, and Hampden on the low side and those in 

 southeastern Massachusetts on the high is about what one would expect. Berk- 

 shire County valuations, however, tend to be more in line with those in south- 

 eastern Massachusetts, whereas those for Worcester County fall with the western 

 \'alley group. 



The valuation on a county basis of the land owned by dairy farmers, Essex 

 County excepted, falls pretty close to the state's average; $500 on either side. _ 

 The picture around the state differs on this item; the western counties plus 

 Worcester being at or above the average; three of the eastern counties, Middle- 

 sex, Norfolk, and Barnstable, below; and two, Plymouth and Bristol, above. 



Valuations on houses and on other buildings showed the most and widest 

 variations. Worcester and the Valley counties were at or below the state average. 

 Berkshire and the eastern counties were at or above for houses. There was a 

 slight shifting of counties so far as other buildings are concerned; Hampden 

 going into the above and Barnstable into the below group. 



The meaning of these relationships is the object of interest; the why as well 

 as the what. Aggregate values and bare values do not lend themselves too readily 

 to disclosing causes of variability. They do, however, suggest possibilities. The 



* Land units for which separate title exists. 



