Robert Meyer · 1904
Robert Meyer’s interventions in the fourteenth sitting of the building-tax reform inquiry combine the procedural work of chairing an official hearing with a focused methodological objection to property valuation by representative types. Published in 1904, this attributable hearing document records Meyer opening the sitting, inviting expert testimony and discussion, suspending and resuming proceedings, and arranging the continuation of unfinished testimony. Its substantive centre is his response to an expert’s suggestion that municipal investigations in Styria might help prepare a value cadastre. Meyer’s concern is whether an informative survey can also provide a dependable basis for assessing individual properties.
The procedural exchanges establish the setting without supplying the experts’ arguments in full. Meyer invites Platter, Baumeister, Baron Störck, Professor Schwarz, and Dr. Zachystal to speak, and recognizes Sektionsrat Dr. Reich. The surviving interventions therefore reveal how Meyer conducts and contributes to the inquiry, but do not support a reconstruction of all the testimony heard that day. His principal contribution follows Störck’s remarks about investigations undertaken by the Styrian provincial committee and its statistical office. Meyer acknowledges their deserved attention before questioning the proposed extension of their method.
His distinction is between using types to obtain an overview and using them to prepare an operational valuation register:
Mit Rücksicht darauf wäre ich der Meinung, daß dieses System der Typen, so außerordentlich belehrend es ist, um einen Gesamtüberblick, einen Anhaltspunkt in der Sache zu bekommen, doch vielleicht weniger Wert hätte für die Vorbereitung des Wertkatasters, den man dann wirklich verwenden soll.
English translation: In view of this, I would be of the opinion that this system of types, exceptionally instructive though it is for obtaining an overall view, a point of reference in the matter, might nevertheless have less value for preparing the value cadastre that is actually to be used.
This is a qualified objection, not a rejection of comparative investigation. Meyer explicitly leaves aside the larger controversy over whether selecting types can secure uniform building assessments. He nevertheless reports a knowledgeable Styrian observer’s claim that conditions in his district differed markedly from those represented by the selected type. The administrative consequence matters: preliminary typological investigations might have to be repeated when actual property assessments began. Their usefulness as orientation would not necessarily translate into a saving of valuation work.
Meyer then moves from reported local experience to investigations undertaken within his own administrative setting. Extensive compilations concerning urban houses had failed to yield dependable types because land-value relationships varied. The difficulty is not finding examples or establishing particular returns, but demonstrating what those examples represent:
Wir können bestimmte Häuser heraussuchen, wir können bestimmte Erträgnisse herausfinden, aber worin der Typus liegt, wie weit er sich erstreckt, können wir nicht feststellen.
English translation: We can select particular houses, we can ascertain particular returns, but we cannot establish what constitutes the type or how far it extends.
The conceptual move is from identifying an observable case to defining the range over which an inference is valid. A house with known returns does not become representative merely because it has been selected. For assessment purposes, the missing step is to establish which other houses can legitimately be valued through it:
Und gerade das wäre eine wichtige Frage, wenn man von dem Typus zu der Berechnung aller Häuserwerte übergehen und wenn man also wissen wollte, für wieviel Exemplare der betreffende Typus gilt.
English translation: And precisely that would be an important question if one wished to proceed from the type to calculating the values of all houses, and thus wished to know to how many instances the type in question applies.
Meyer closes by thanking the expert for raising the issue, preserving the exploratory character of his intervention. He offers no alternative valuation system here. The document’s significance lies instead in its precise warning about the evidentiary demands of tax administration: an illuminating statistical pattern is not yet a defensible rule for assigning values to individual properties. His contribution makes the applicability of the selected type—not simply the quantity of information collected—the decisive methodological question.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian