TAX ADMINISTRATION

181

influence, whose support is desired by the assessor, particularly
 when he is an elected official. It is not claimed that
these factors were operative in the City of Columbia. It is
possible that the results shown in Table 55 are more or less
accidental, particularly when it is considered that farm
properties in the same county showed an opposite tendency.
Several factors may be cited in explanation of the local
differences among the ratios of assessed valuation to true
value for real estate. In the first place, real property assessments
 in Missouri involve the joint valuation of land and
buildings. In very few cases in the same county is the
actual distribution of total value between the land and the
buildings the same, except possibly in the case of blocks or
rows of houses in urban communities. Even in the latter
there would be some variation resulting from differences in
improvements. Furthermore, it is possible to appraise some
properties much more easily than others. An assessor who
is or has been a farmer is naturally better qualified to appraise
 the value of farm lands than the value of manufacturing
 and other urban properties. The correct valuation of
manufacturing properties involves considerable engineering
knowledge, and it is doubtful if on the average they are appraised
 with a degree of uniformity comparable with that
found in the case of urban residential and rural properties.
Moreover, rapidly shifting real estate values give rise to
discrepancies. The factors affecting real estate values are
numerous, and a correct appraisal of the influence of each
factor is a practical impossibility.
Another factor applicable in Missouri is the fact that the
law calls for assessment according to true value in money.
This implies a 1009, assessment, but in practice the average
appears to be only about 55%, and it follows that the most
the assessors can do is to establish some standard of value
at a level far below 1009, of true value. If an assessor in
any locality should make his valuations on the basis of even
959%, when the average for the state was between 50%, and
60%, it is doubtful that he would retain his office very long.
The result of such an assessment would be a larger contribution
 to state property taxes than could be justified.