Assessment Change based on Property Type

According to Tyler’s analysis (, the tax impact looks to be roughly evenly split, but again, the data does not bear this out:

Market value change – Residential (18203)
  Reduced Approx. the same Increased
Tyler (tax) 24% 42% 34%
Actual (market value) 15% 37% 48%


Market value change – Condos (5158)
  Reduced Approx. the same Increased
Tyler (tax) 14% 82% 3.4%
Actual (market value) 8% 84% 8%


Market value change – Vacant (1813)
  Reduced Approx. the same Increased
Tyler (tax) 3% 59% 38%
Actual (market value) 29% 34% 37%


Market value change – All others (3156)
  Reduced Approx. the same Increased
Tyler (tax, corporate) 40% 47% 12%
Actual (market value) 31% 25% 44%


  • Wholly exempt and $0 value lots were excluded
  • “Approx the same” is +/- 10%
  • Residential: 1, 2, and 3 family residences
  • Vacant: all vacant lots

Leave a Reply for greenburghreassessment Cancel Reply

Write a Comment


  1. The “approximiately the same” category always looked like an obfuscation. It is notable that the Town/Tyler never define “the same.” As your numbers show, +/- 10% is an absurd way to define “approximately the same” since for most real people, starting at least at $20K in taxes, +/- 10% could mean an $2K+ increase per year. And clearly as this post shows, the Town/Tyler defined “the same” in the spreadsheet as much as +/- 15%. How would the numbers look if the “the same” were defined more realistically as +/- 3% or 5%? Please send me a link to your excel sheet. Great work!