Who Pays Their Fair Share?

In Chemung County, a homeowner whose property sold for $40,000 pays 72% more in property taxes per dollar of actual value than a homeowner whose property sold for $300,000. This is not an accident. It is the direct result of a frozen assessment roll.

The Simple Version
Before the charts and the ratios, here is what is actually happening.
The county has to decide how much every house is "worth" so it knows how much to charge in property taxes. An assessor sets those values. Whatever number the assessor puts on your house — that's what you pay taxes on.

The assessor in Elmira hasn't really updated those numbers in a long time. When houses actually sell, we find out what they're really worth — because a real person paid real money for them. So we can compare: what did the assessor say the house was worth versus what did someone actually pay for it?

Here's what the data shows. Cheap houses — the ones in the struggling neighborhoods, selling for $30,000 or $40,000 — are assessed at more than people actually paid for them. Those owners are paying taxes on value that doesn't exist. Expensive houses are assessed at far less than what people paid. Those owners get a big discount.

The result: a family in a $40,000 house pays 72% more in property taxes per dollar their home is actually worth than a family in a $300,000 house. Same tax system. Very different deal.

Why? Because houses in nicer neighborhoods went up in value over the years, but the assessor never updated the numbers to keep up. The cheap houses in struggling neighborhoods didn't go up in value — so their numbers stayed roughly accurate. And it gets worse every year that the roll stays frozen.

The Assessment-to-Sale Ratio
When a property sells, we can compare what the assessor said it was worth to what a willing buyer actually paid. That ratio should be close to 1.0 for a fair assessment. In Chemung County, it isn't — and the gap is not random.
1.36 Median ratio — homes under $50K
assessed at 136% of sale price
0.43 Median ratio — Elmira homes $125–150K
assessed at 43% of sale price
0.79 Median ratio — homes over $200K
assessed at 79% of sale price
1.72× Tax burden gap — cheap vs. expensive
per dollar of actual market value

A ratio above 1.0 means the assessed value exceeds what the property actually sold for — the owner is paying taxes on phantom value. A ratio below 1.0 means the property is under-assessed — the owner pays less than their share. In a fair system, both would cluster near 1.0 regardless of price. In Chemung County, cheap homes cluster above 1.0 and expensive homes cluster below it.

This analysis uses 6,491 arm's-length single-family sales recorded in Chemung County between 2018 and 2025. Arm's-length sales are transactions between unrelated parties at fair market value — foreclosures, family transfers, and quitclaims are excluded. The data comes from the New York State ORPTS SalesWeb system.


The J-Curve
Plot assessment ratio against sale price and a pattern emerges: over-assessment at the bottom, under-assessment in the middle, partial recovery at the top. The shape is consistent with what researchers find in cities across the country that haven't reassessed in decades.

The county-wide J-curve shows the cheapest homes — those selling under $50,000 — carrying a median ratio of 1.36. These are the houses in the most distressed neighborhoods, the ones most likely to be owned by people with the least political power and the least ability to appeal their assessments. They are, on average, paying property taxes on value that does not exist.

The City of Elmira's curve is steeper. An Elmira home that sold for $125,000 to $150,000 carried a median assessment ratio of 0.43 — assessed at less than half its actual market value. The frozen assessment roll has allowed decades of market appreciation to go uncaptured in Elmira's tax base while leaving the cheapest properties stuck near their assessed values, which haven't fallen as fast as the neighborhood conditions that drove prices down.

The mechanism is straightforward: when a city stops reassessing, assessments drift away from market values at different rates in different neighborhoods. Neighborhoods that have appreciated (even modestly) see their assessments fall further below market. Neighborhoods that have declined see their assessments stay closer to — or exceed — actual value. The result is a transfer of tax burden from appreciating areas to declining ones, which in Elmira means a transfer from wealthier to poorer households.

The Gap Is Getting Worse
Year-by-year data from 2018 to 2025 shows the assessment ratio for mid-range and expensive homes falling steadily while the ratio for cheap homes stays near 1.0. Without reassessment, this trend continues indefinitely.

In 2018, a home selling in the $75,000–$150,000 range carried a median ratio of about 0.83 — assessed at 83% of market value. By 2025, that same price range had a median ratio of 0.55. The gap between cheap homes (ratio holding near 1.0) and mid-range homes (ratio falling year over year) has nearly doubled in seven years.

This is what happens when a housing market moves and assessments don't. Post-pandemic home price appreciation hit Chemung County the same way it hit the rest of the country — median sale prices for arm's-length single-family transactions climbed significantly between 2020 and 2024. The assessment roll didn't follow. The result is an ever-larger subsidy for properties that have appreciated, paid for by properties that haven't.

The only corrective is reassessment. The equalization rate adjustment the state applies — which produced the apparent jump in Elmira's "full value" figures in 2023 — adjusts how the state measures the roll for aid and apportionment purposes. It does not change a single property's assessed value. No one's tax bill changes because of the equalization rate. Only a actual citywide reassessment resets individual assessments to current market value.


Elmira Specifically
The city's regressivity pattern is sharper than the county average — and the stakes are higher, given the city's poverty rate and tax burden.

Among the 1,699 arm's-length single-family sales recorded in the City of Elmira between 2018 and 2025, 17.7% involved a property assessed at more than its sale price. These are predominantly in the lowest price tiers — homes under $50,000 — in the city's most economically stressed neighborhoods. The households in those homes are disproportionately renters (whose landlords pass property taxes through in rent) or low-income owners who have limited options to appeal or move.

Meanwhile, properties at the middle and upper end of the Elmira market are dramatically under-assessed. A home selling for $130,000 in Elmira in 2024 typically carried an assessed value under $60,000. The owner pays taxes on $60,000 worth of property while living in a $130,000 house. The effective tax rate per dollar of actual value is less than half what a neighbor in a $40,000 assessed property pays.

This is not a story about the rich avoiding taxes. Most of these properties are modest working-class homes. The regressivity isn't driven by mansions being under-assessed — it's driven by an entire housing market appreciating away from a frozen assessment roll, unevenly, in ways that happen to follow income and neighborhood lines.

Assessment regressivity is not unique to Elmira. It has been documented in Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, and dozens of other cities with infrequent reassessment. The pattern is consistent enough that the academic literature calls it a structural feature of low-reassessment systems, not administrative error. The Chemung County data fits the pattern precisely.

Charts
Three views of assessment regressivity: the J-curve shape, the trend over time, and the distribution of ratios at the top and bottom of the market. All data: arm's-length single-family sales, Chemung County 2018–2025 (n = 6,491).
Assessment-to-sale ratio by price bin — county and Elmira
The J-Curve — Assessment Ratio vs. Sale Price County-wide (blue, with IQR band) and City of Elmira only (red dashed). The horizontal dotted line is a fair assessment (ratio = 1.0). Properties above the line are over-assessed; below it, under-assessed. Elmira's curve is steeper across nearly every price tier.
Assessment ratio by price tier, 2018–2025
The Widening Gap — Ratio Trends by Price Tier, 2018–2025 Cheap homes (red) hold near 1.0 while mid-range and expensive homes drift further below fair value each year. The gap between the cheapest and most expensive tiers has nearly doubled since 2018.
Distribution of assessment ratios — cheap vs. expensive homes
Who Pays What — Distribution of Ratios Cheap homes (red, under $50K) cluster above the fair-value line; expensive homes (blue, over $200K) cluster below it. The vertical dashed lines show the median for each group — a 72% gap in effective tax rate per dollar of actual value.

What Changes This

Reassessment. That is the only mechanism that corrects assessment regressivity. When a city reassesses to current market value, every property's assessed value is reset to reflect what it would actually sell for today. The ratio distribution tightens around 1.0. The effective tax rate per dollar of value equalizes.

Reassessment is often described as a tax increase on long-time homeowners — and for some it is, if their neighborhood has appreciated. But the framing obscures what's actually happening: under the current system, those same long-time homeowners have been receiving a subsidy, paid by their neighbors in cheaper properties who have been over-assessed. Reassessment doesn't raise taxes — it reallocates them to reflect actual values.

The Elmira page models what citywide reassessment would mean for the distribution of assessments and who would see their bills change. The Why It Matters page explains why reassessment hasn't happened despite the evidence, and who benefits from the status quo.

Method: 6,491 arm's-length single-family (class 210) sales in Chemung County, 2018–2025, from NYS ORPTS SalesWeb (data as of May 2025). Each sale's assessment-to-sale-price ratio = assessed value ÷ sale price. Sales below $10,000 and ratios above 5.0 are excluded as likely data errors or non-market transfers. The headline gap compares the median ratio for sales under $50K (1.361) with sales of $200K or more (0.790): 1.361 ÷ 0.790 ≈ 1.72×, i.e. 72% more tax per dollar of value. The regressive pattern this measures is well documented in the assessment literature (e.g. Berry 2021 on Chicago; Avenancio-León & Howard 2022).