I qualify as an expert only on Clarke County contemporary (late 20th
century) land records.  They, like all of Virginia, have moved to
assessments at 100% of market value, but that was only in the late 1980's.
So the first thing you need to ascertain about value of land or buildings is
the % of market value used.

Assumning that land and buildings (sometimes called 'improvements') are
taxed at 100% market value, these are listed usually under the term
'assessed value'.  Than can be a number of knockoffs to get down to 'taxed
value.'  The largest single one in these parts is 'deferred land use.'  This
is an effort to encourage the ranchers and farmers to keep the land in
agriculture and based on some values 'out of Richmond.'  We are second from
the top in Virginia whereas 19 cents of every $1 of our taxes goes to (or is
not paid by) land use.

I hope this helps.

Randy Cabell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lyle E. Browning" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 8:24 PM
Subject: Land Tax Records


> I've a question about the Land Tax Records. I
> have been under the perhaps mistaken
> assumption that all buildings on a property
> constituted the real tax base. By that I mean
> that if a 100 acre property had a barn on it,
> then it was taxed at the perceived value of
> the barn.
>
> Working in Pittsylvania County on the LTR, I
> have done a complete search of the records
> and on what was a 1495 acre property when
> devised in lots in 1858, the LTR says that
> from 1820 when they began to 1859 when this
> particular individual's ownership ceased,
> there were no buildings on the property.
>
> However, a Deed of Partition shows 5 and a
> bit lots with the aggregate being about 50%
> cleared. One lot clearly says "in good
> condition for agriculture". One might surmise
> that the land was in the process of being
> cleared as it was near the end of the owners
> life and anticipation of higher return might
> cause improvements.
>
> However, the 1850 Agricultural Census shows
> the same owner with 3 monster parcels,
> unfortunately with the last two listed as the
> gross acreage for all three. In the details,
> the devil is clearly revealed in that all of
> the groups have clearly got both agriculture
> and animal husbandry going on.
>
> So, has anyone been bitten by a similar
> problem and is there a work-around? I've
> looked at his Personal Property Tax records
> and done a ratio of acres per slave which
> remains similar despite acreage changes,
> which to me indicates an active agricultural
> concern. However, crop rotation and Edmund
> Ruffin's 1832 Essays on Calcareous Manures
> should mean that only parts of the terrain
> were under cultivation at any one time.
>
> What does the LTR actually tax? Main owner
> house or all buildings?
>
> Has anyone got figures apart from Kulikof on
> cereal crop and tobacco farming with respect
> to the average number of slaves it took per
> acre or whatever measure one uses?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Lyle
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html