GROUND RENT A SOCIAL PRODUCT 17 
Deducting from the total of prices indicated by the 
footing of the 120 sales .... $7,291,375 
Four-thirds of assessed valuation of buildings . 2,772,933 
Would give perhaps a fair estimate of what the 
land sold for ...... $4,518,442 
To this it is necessary to add the capitalised tax 
upon the land for the same year, 1900, 
$3,758,600 x $14.70 (the number of dollars 
tax per thousand) x 20 (the number of years’ 
purchase) ...... $1,105,028 
In order to get the gross capitalised ground rental . 
value of the land ..... $5,623,470 
From above it appears that the assessed valuations 
were only five-sixths of the selling value and two- 
thirds of the gross value. 
The figures for 751 rentals of estates were also ob 
tained from reliable sources and are exhibited in Appen 
dix H, and from these figures it appears that the assessed 
valuation of the land ($23,067,800) is five-sixths of the 
gross value ($31,548,500), as compared with two-thirds 
obtained from the first set of figures. It is probable, how 
ever, that these 751 estates are in the aggregate improved 
to less than one-half of their normal efficiency, and 
hence the gross income which the land now yields 
may be considerably less than the true ground rental. 
If so, then, the gross value of the land, namely, the 
ground rental capitalized at 5%, is considerably greater 
than is shown by the figures, and the assessed valuation, 
therefore, may well be only two-thirds of this gross value 
and five-sixths of the selling value as in the former case. 
In the absence of contradictory or correcting testi 
mony it is fair to ask the reader to accept these lists 
of 120 sales and 751 estate rentals respectively as an 
indication that a ratio of five-sixths exists between 
assessed valuation and selling value.