88 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
uniform rate of $3 per acre, regardless of their condition or situation. 
The base assessed value of nontillable land in Tillamook County, 
Oreg., was $2.50 per acre. In Grays Harbor County, Wash., there 
has been a general standard of values in use by the assessors over a 
long period. In this county 138 classes of land were recognized, and 
this classification was based largely on topography. The values as- 
signed to each class varied from $2.50 per acre for rough, steep, 
broken land to $7.50 per acre for no. 1 bottom land. This information 
is as of 1928, the year investigations were made in the Pacific North- 
west. 
A common method in determining value in use by assessors in 
North Carolina is as follows: In a rough way the assessor will break 
up the total acreage into 3 or 4 elements, give each a value per acre, 
add something for the buildings, and thus arrive at a total. In 
northern Michigan a uniform assessment per acre of cut-over land 
of the same general soil class is common over each township. Thus, 
sandy pineland will be valued at one price per acre, sandy hardwood 
land at another, and swamp land at yet another standard value. 
Even the Michigan State Tax Commission recommends this method 
of assessment for cut-over forest lands and, in fact, uses it in cases 
where it is called upon for a reassessment. On improved lands, how- 
ever, the property as a whole is usually the unit of valuation. 
The Louisiana Tax Commission, in its instructions of 1930, placed 
“tentative average minimum values”’ on certain classes of property 
as follows: 
Hardwood: timber: tee sibs a he ie ne ba LAE per M__ $3. 00—$8. 50 
itand oniwhich hardwood'stands a5 san 0h )s set apt per acre._ 2. 00— 3. 00 
| GAH OV eVR A 001) O12) eee nneeD aia kee Ide wra 00k Oy ea Rin Faeee aes nt MEU Lae SPD TN 2 een per M__ 6. 00-10. 00 
Mandrvoniwhichspineistands sass. ==) eis per acre_- 2. 00 
Cypress) timber] see 4 eee ihe Ay alee cine 1 Aten c eu eee per M__ 6. 50-10. 50 
Landon whichieypress stands@ =) 22s ye eae per acre_= 1. 50 
Seaumarsh:ielags AG eae. eies Sk ely cr Rerutin O Winiy | en ee ne coxa 4. 00 
Searmarsh, class iB tyr 2 iy ee PA sage i alas cole OS AN Ce ate doa 3. 00 
Rresh=waterimansisiclass yA niet eee aes te ke sy pai ey eouee Ove doeaee 4. 00 
resh=water mners ak Class kya ees aarp yee re gees eee dovee 3. 00 
(rapping lam ds. si eo Say a Reem e eo wee ainge ihe yet ea donsss 5. 00 
A comparison of the actual average assessed values shows that they 
do not depart greatly from these minima (30, pp. 23-26, 134-144). 
Thus, the instructions have apparently resulted not only in a mini- 
mum per-acre assessment, but almost in a uniform per-acre assess- 
ment as well. 
- Copy oF AND HorizontTaL CHANGE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR’S ASSESSMENT ROLL 
The assessment is often made by merely copying the descriptions 
and values on the previous year’s assessment roll and revising the 
value of any property on which there has been a marked change in 
the nature of the improvements (33, Rept. 14, p. 48) or on which 
timber is reported cut. This is especially true in those States whose 
laws provide for an annual assessment of real estate. 
Investigations made in Michigan lead to the conclusion that there is no annual 
reassessment of property in many parts of this State * * * A check up 
* * * made in eleven townships shows that from 18 to 63 percent of the 
real estate descriptions of ten acres or more were assessed in 1926 at the figure 
fixed * * * from eight to fourteen years previous. * * * (41, p. 23). 
