FOREST TAXATION IN THE UNITED STATES 129 
remote from the settled parts of the towns and are therefore not as 
well known to the assessors as the properties owned by residents. 
The findings of this study in regard to the degree of variability in 
assessment practice in Oregon are corroborated by the report of 
another investigation, which gives coefficients of dispersion for 
assessment ratios of rural property representing the 4 years, 1921, 
1923, 1925, and 1926, for the same counties covered in this study, as 
follows (17, p. 38): Baker, 33; Grant, 43; Klamath, 39; and Lane, 42. 
The average coefficients for the same 4 years range throughout the 
State from 24 to 46 for rural properties in the different counties, with 
an average for all counties of 37. The corresponding coefficients for 
city assessment ratios range from 20 to 50, with an average for all 
counties of 35 (17, p. 39). Apparently there is in Oregon no marked 
difference in equality between city and rural assessment. 
In Iowa a somewhat better degree of equality in assessment is 
shown than in Oregon, although the results there are by no means 
satisfactory. A recent Iowa investigation (39, pp. 37, 38, 44)” 
shows coefficients of dispersion ranging from 16 to 29 in 8 cities, from 
19 to 39 in 14 towns, and from 11 to 25 in 41 counties, considering 
rural properties only in the counties. The more homogeneous 
character of the property and greater stability of the market are 
suggested as factors in the higher degree of equality exhibited in 
Iowa. Also these coefficients are based on results of a single year, 
while in Oregon the necessity of using a period of years to obtain a 
sufficient sales sample may have exaggerated the coefficients a little. 
The same investigation reports far better results in assessment for 
12 agricultural counties of Wisconsin than those for the forest counties 
as indicated by this study. The coefficients of dispersion for rural 
property in 12 Wisconsin counties (1927) range between 8 and 29 
(39, p. 70), as against a range of 21 to 48 for the 17 forest counties 
represented in table 40. While some of the difference is doubtless 
the result of using a 3-year period for the forest counties as against a 
single-year basis for the agricultural counties, most of the difference 
may be safely ascribed to the greater uniformity in property and 
greater stability of the real estate market at that time in the agri- 
cultural counties. This conclusion is supported by the close agree- 
ment between the Nelson and Mitchell coefficient of 11 for rural 
properties in Richland County for 1927 and the coefficient of 13 
found in this study for farm properties in the same county (included 
as a sample of the region in which forest land is confined to farm 
wood lots) for 1925, 1926, and 1927 taken together. 
In six Minnesota counties located outside of the predominantly 
forest region of the State, Nelson and Mitchell find a degree of 
inequality in assessment (1926-27) between that of the agricultural 
and that of the forest counties of Wisconsin. The coefficients of 
these six counties range from 14 to 29 (89, p. 91). 
A study of assessment of real estate in Illinois shows a high degree of 
inequality between individual properties. In 1927 an analysis of sales 
in 10 counties outside of Chicago showed coefficients ranging from 
31 to 62 andinthecity of Chicago, a coefficient of 36.5°° (49, p. 62). 
32 The index referred to by Nelson and Mitchell ($9) as the ‘‘average percentage deviation, value basis”’, 
corresponds to and is calculated in the same manner as the coefficient of dispersion. 
33 Apparently these coefficients, termed ‘‘average percentage deviations’’, were determined by the use 
of unweighted average deviations with reference to average assessment ratios weighted by value. In that 
case they are not exactly comparable to the coefficients used in this study. 
101285 °—35——_9 
