134 MISC. PUBLICATION 218, U. 8. DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE 
if the reverse is true. Therefore the assessment ratio of a single 
property class is likely to Sees that class somewhat more accu- 
rately than the assessment ratio of all classes within the county repre- 
sents the county. For information as to the size of the groups of 
properties represented by the different assessment ratios, reference 
should be made to summary tables 23 to 29.- These tables also give 
coefficients of dispersion, weighted by value, for the different groups 
where sales or intensive appraisals were used to approximate true 
values. 
INEQUALITY AS SHOWN By APPRAISALS 
MINNESOTA 
The most striking feature of the assessment ratios based on appraisals 
of real estate in the selected townships of Minnesota is the marked 
overvaluation of cut-over lands in comparison with farm lands (table 
44). These ratios also indicate that farm improvements are heavily 
undervalued relative to other properties. At the time of the study the 
merchantable timber had been largely removed from Minnesota, and 
the only adequate sample obtained was that in the township of 
Beaver Bay in Lake County. Here the timber-property class, repre- 
senting the bulk of the value in the township, was assessed at 106 
percent of the appraised value, while the farm-property class was 
assessed at only 34 percent. 
TaBLE 44.—Assessment ratios based on appraisals, by property classes, 1926; 
selected townships, Minnesota } 
Farm 
County and township Timber cule Resort? aul 
Improve-| ota] BESSES) 
Land TTS ota 
Beltrami: Percent |Percent |Percent | Percent |Percent |Percent |Percent 
1D 0) (Speen cia an eee Shee Sn Se ee eps eae cel oe 140 88 13 73 (3) 92 
ESTO Lng re oe Sek ree eee | de 177 78 8 60 72 86 
Je yeas bhe( Gaye a 6) es ata Saray ete apd an aap area || Se SoS 279 121 14 74 106 116 
Hubbard: 
Olay ee he IR a | a 296 192 54 157 147 247 
CrowalWingelvake 2 ia Ss ee ee (3) 289 104 50 95 106 131 
Iwake Wminatse0. eaeee e (3) 194 115 52 94 84 116 
Schoolcraft 2 ee eee 245 309 183 34 1:20} ees 272 
Lake: 
T. 59 N., R. 8 W. (in Beaver Bay)-__--- 106 92 38 22 34 (8) 92 
TE5SIN PRG Wikding@ramer) © 2a) se 2 ee 252 (3) () (8) Bl-ee see 236 
T. 54.N., R. 10 W. (in Silver Creek) ____|_-__-__-- 128 68 30 Ea Le 100 
St. Louis: 
mp arrass st ee eee a ee (8) 65 26 OA 26 as eee 36 
ROU] gees eee eee EN EO oe RO el 2 In) a ne 153 51 36 46y| eis ea es 100 
Te54Neand| S5yNee bel 4 WW ee 110 216 (6); eee ee (8) (3) 197 
1 Source of data: Refer to table 23. 
2 Improvement values are included under cut over and resort. Those under cut over are negligible in 
amount. 
3 Areas under 500 acres and improvement values totaling less than $2,500 are not considered sufficient 
samples to warrant computing assessment ratios. 
4 Based only on those areas which were examined, representing 31 percent of the entire area of the town 
and 34 percent of the total assessed value. 
When the Minnesota assessment ratios are averaged by cover 
classes, it is evident that the inferior rough and sandy forest uplands 
are, aS a rule, overassessed, and the swamp lands even more so 
(table 45). In making these comparisons, only those descriptions were 
used in which the assessed values are predominantly related to single 
cover classes. As the assessed values of land are not subdivided by 
