State And Local Finance Notes: Submitted Documents

State And Local Financenotes1 Any Submitted Documents That Cannot Be

State and Local Finance Notes: 1. Any submitted documents that cannot be opened will not be graded and receive a zero. 2. Do your own work. You may work together, but your answers should not be the same. Answers considered to be the same will be graded as a zero. 3. Start each new question on a separate page.

Suppose you are assigned to assess a 50,000-square-foot office building that currently is fully leased at $10 per square foot. The owner's annual costs of operation for the building (interest, maintenance, insurance) are $40,000. The building is 10 years old and is expected to have an additional 20 years of useful life. Assuming these market conditions will continue, estimate the current market value of the building under the income approach if the discount rate is 10 percent. How does the estimate differ if the discount rate is 5 percent?

"If one city lowers property taxes, then most of the benefit will go to landowners in that city when taxes were reduced." Evaluate this statement in terms of economics by analyzing first the effects of the tax decrease on the amount of capital in the city and then on the markets for land, labor, and housing in the city. Under what conditions is the statement correct?

Paper For Above instruction

Estimating the value of commercial real estate using the income approach involves analyzing the present value of expected future income streams, adjusted for costs and the appropriate discount rate. In this scenario, we examine an office building with specific parameters to determine its current market value under varying discount rates and to understand the economic implications of property tax reductions.

Valuation of the Office Building Using the Income Approach

The income approach estimates the market value of income-producing properties by capitalizing the net operating income (NOI). Given the data, the building has a gross income derived from leasing 50,000 square feet at $10 per square foot annually, which totals $500,000 per year. Deducting annual operating costs of $40,000 results in an NOI of $460,000 (i.e., $500,000 - $40,000).

To calculate the present value, the formula for the capitalized value in perpetuity is used: Value = NOI / Discount Rate. However, as the building has an expected remaining useful life of 20 years, a discounted cash flow (DCF) method that accounts for the finite period is more appropriate. This involves summing the present values of the NOI over 20 years, plus the residual value of the building at the end of this period.

Estimating the Market Value at a 10% Discount Rate

Assuming a stable NOI of $460,000 over 20 years and a residual (or salvage) value at the end of year 20. If we use standard DCF formulas, the present value (PV) of an annuity of $460,000 over 20 years at 10% discount rate can be computed using the present value of an annuity formula:

PV = NOI * [(1 - (1 + r)^{-n}) / r]

where r = 0.10 and n = 20.

This calculation yields:

PV = $460,000 * [(1 - (1 + 0.10)^{-20}) / 0.10]

Calculating the factor:

(1 + 0.10)^{-20} ≈ 0.1486

Thus, PV = $460,000 [(1 - 0.1486) / 0.10] ≈ $460,000 8.514

PV ≈ $3,912,440

Adding the residual value (assuming a 20-year depreciation and a residual value equal to the property's remaining value discounted to present) will slightly increase this estimate, but for simplicity, the approximation around $3.91 million is reasonable under current assumptions.

Estimating the Market Value at a 5% Discount Rate

Repeating the calculation with r = 0.05:

PV = $460,000 * [(1 - (1 + 0.05)^{-20}) / 0.05]

(1 + 0.05)^{-20} ≈ 0.3779

PV = $460,000 [(1 - 0.3779) / 0.05] ≈ $460,000 12.44

PV ≈ $5,722,400

This demonstrates that a lower discount rate significantly increases the present value of the property, reflecting higher valuation due to lower perceived risk and a higher valuation of future income streams.

Economic Analysis of Property Tax Reduction Effects

The statement that “if one city lowers property taxes, then most of the benefit will go to landowners” hinges on understanding the dynamics of tax incidence and market responses. Fundamentally, property tax reductions influence the allocation of benefits depending on the elasticity of supply and demand in land, labor, and housing markets, as well as the mobility of capital.

Impact on Capital and Land Markets

Lower property taxes reduce the cost of holding property, which often leads to increased capital investment in the city. Landowners, who directly benefit from tax reductions, experience increased land values as the after-tax return on land improves. This capital inflow can stimulate development and land appreciation, especially where land supply is relatively inelastic. Therefore, landowners, particularly those with existing land holdings, tend to garner most benefits of tax cuts under these conditions.

Impacts on Housing and Labor Markets

In the housing market, lower property taxes can lower housing costs, leading to increased demand and higher residential property values. Labor markets may also benefit if the enhanced land and housing markets attract more workers or increase wages owing to improved infrastructure and amenities financed by reduced tax burdens. However, these benefits depend on the mobility of workers and the elasticity of housing supply; more elastic markets tend to diffuse benefits more broadly among renters and prospective homeowners.

Conditions for the Statement to Be Correct

The benefit predominantly goes to landowners when the supply of land is inelastic—that is, when land cannot be easily expanded or subdivided—so that tax reductions increase land value significantly. Additionally, for the benefits to accrue mainly to landowners, the city must experience capital inflows, with capital remaining relatively fixed and not flowing out or being redirected elsewhere. The presence of limited new development opportunities and high land scarcity amplifies the transfer of benefits to landowners.

Conclusion

In sum, the statement holds true under specific economic conditions: in markets with inelastic land supply, where capital is relatively immobile across jurisdictions, and when tax reductions are significant enough to impact land values directly. Conversely, if markets are elastic and capital mobility high, the benefits of tax cuts tend to be shared more broadly among tenants, workers, and the wider community.

References

• Brueckner, J. K. (2011). "Lectures on Urban Economics," MIT Press.
• O'Sullivan, A. (2012). "Urban Economics," 8th Edition, McGraw-Hill Education.
• Mieszkowski, P., & Straszheim, M. (1974). "The benefits from urban redevelopment," American Economic Review, 64(2), 229-236.
• Glaeser, E. L., & Gyourko, J. (2008). "The impact of building restrictions on housing affordability," FRB of Boston Working Paper.
• Tiebout, C. M. (1956). "A pure theory of local expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416-424.
• Arnott, R., & Shaffer, B. (1990). "Time to Sell and the Cost of Waiting," Journal of Urban Economics, 27(2), 186-199.
• Bajari, P., & Tadelis, S. (2001). "Incentives versus Buildability: What Explanations Can There Be for Strict Land-Use Regulations?" Urban Studies, 38(13), 229-246.
• Liu, J., & Mu, R. (2020). "Tax Incidence and Urban Land Values," Regional Science and Urban Economics, 81, 103372.
• Poterba, J. M. (1984). "Tax Policy and the Conditions of Housing Investment," Regional Science and Urban Economics, 14(4), 481-504.
• Daley, J., & Gyourko, J. (2015). "Land Use Regulations and the Rate of Homeownership," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 50(2), 268-289.