In three Florida counties, 46% to 56% of commercial sale records carry codes outside the market-value screen.

Question 01

What share of recorded sales fall outside the reported screen?

On one identical date window — recorded sales from the start of 2025 — the published screens count 47.1% in Sarasota County, 55.5% in Manatee, 46.1% in Miami-Dade and 73.8% in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The underlying code rules differ. Mecklenburg’s 2025-onward figure uses the all-nonblank-code screen; its separate 2024-onward count includes 226 Code AG transfers the county describes as fair-market. These are screen counts rather than directly comparable rates of non-arm’s-length transactions.

“Recorded sale” and “market transaction” are not the same thing, and the gap is not small. A Florida county appraiser assigns every recorded deed a Department of Revenue qualification code. Codes 0 and 01 through 07 mean the sale is treated as usable evidence of market value. Everything else — corrective deeds, transfers between affiliated companies, partial interests, sales never exposed to the open market — is excluded from the assessor’s own sales analysis.

Mecklenburg County publishes a sales validity code beside every recorded transfer. A blank code carries no rejection reason. The county describes Code AG as a fair-market conveyance of two or more parcels; we found no published county rule on whether those sales are used as qualified. This study’s 2024-onward single-parcel screen excludes every nonblank code, including the 226 AG records the county qualifies. The codes and definitions differ from Florida’s DOR list; the two largest Mecklenburg codes are “transaction is for $3,000 or less” and “conveyance of 2 or more parcels”.

We counted those codes directly. In Sarasota County, 1,314 of 2,368 commercial sales since 2024 were qualified and 1,054 were not. In Manatee County, 350 of 786 commercial sales in 2025 and 2026 were qualified and 436 were not — the only Florida county in the series where the disqualified sales outnumber the qualified ones. In Miami-Dade, 2,485 of 4,614 commercial sales from 2025 onward were qualified and 2,129 were not. In Mecklenburg County, 3,333 of 4,511 commercial, industrial and office sale records since 2024 carry a nonblank code and fall outside this study’s single-parcel screen. That includes 226 Code AG records the county describes as fair-market. Sarasota’s disqualified count includes 57 sales (2.4%) where the appraiser had simply not decided yet — qualification code 99, pending — so the settled disqualification rate there is marginally lower than 44.5% and will move when those are resolved.

Mecklenburg adds a market outside Florida, but its rate is not a like-for-like test of Florida’s rulebook. Sarasota, Manatee and Miami-Dade use Florida DOR qualification codes. Mecklenburg uses its own validity codes, and this study’s 73.9% single-parcel screen includes 226 AG transfers the county describes as fair-market. The result is a documented code-screen count, not an estimate of how many transfers were economically non-arm’s-length.

A fifth county has the code and will not say what it means

Berkeley County, South Carolina publishes a sale-qualification field and no legend for it. Its Validity column carries 24 distinct codes across 117,378 parcels. On the same date window as the four counties above, 164 of 316 commercial parcels last sold from the start of 2025 carry a code other than the two that dominate ordinary sales (51.9%). That is a code-frequency count only; without a definition, it is not a sale-quality or arm’s-length rate.

We do not report it as a non-arm’s-length rate, and neither should anyone quoting this page. Every field in the county’s service returns a null domain; the county publishes no data dictionary; South Carolina prescribes no statewide code set and its Department of Revenue publishes no sales ratio manual; and the CAMA vendor treats the field as jurisdiction-generated. Unlike Florida’s DOR codes and Mecklenburg’s validity codes, nobody outside the assessor’s office can say what a Berkeley code means. The count is real and the interpretation is unavailable, which is a different kind of fact and is printed here as one. Full working in study No. 05.

Four county code screens, one date window

The date window is the same; the code definitions are not. Manatee and Miami-Dade publish a single roll cycle from 2025 onward, and Sarasota and Mecklenburg publish matched counts for that window. The reported shares outside each study’s screen are 47.1% in Sarasota County (683 of 1,450), 55.5% in Manatee (436 of 786), 46.1% in Miami-Dade (2,129 of 4,614) and 73.8% in Mecklenburg County (2,091 of 2,834). The separate 2024-onward Mecklenburg count includes 226 Code AG transfers the county describes as fair-market; Florida uses its own DOR code list.

These four percentages should be quoted with their screens and denominators, not averaged or read as rates for equivalent transactions. The matched date window removes one source of variation; it does not make the county code definitions equivalent or show why the figures differ.

Each study’s rate, under its stated screen and window

County	Window counted	Outside stated screen
Sarasota County, Florida (study No. 01) ¶	recorded sales since 2024	1,054 of 2,368 · 44.5%
Manatee County, Florida (study No. 01) ¶	2025 and 2026	436 of 786 · 55.5%
Miami-Dade County, Florida (study No. 02) ¶	recorded sales from 2025 onward	2,129 of 4,614 · 46.1%
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina (study No. 03) ¶	recorded sales since 2024	3,333 of 4,511 · 73.9%

These are the counts each study published under its stated screen. Mecklenburg’s 73.9% includes 226 Code AG transfers the county describes as fair-market. Sarasota’s 44.5% and Mecklenburg’s 73.9% use their own published windows; the matched 2025-onward Mecklenburg figure is 73.8%. Quote each figure with its county, screen and window.

Embed this chart

PNG, served at 1440×1000 for retina and displayed at 720×500. WordPress.com and many newsroom editors strip hotlinked SVG; the vector version is linked in the credit line.

<a href="https://glvtl.com/non-arms-length-sales-statistics/"> <img src="https://glvtl.com/assets/statistics-hub-four-markets.png" alt="Share outside each study’s screen from 2025 onward: Sarasota 47.1%, Manatee 55.5%, Miami-Dade 46.1%, Mecklenburg 73.8%. Mecklenburg’s separate 2024-onward count includes 226 Code AG fair-market, multi-parcel transfers." width="720" height="500"> </a> <p><a href="https://glvtl.com/non-arms-length-sales-statistics/">Source: Sterling Digital Partners, non-arm's-length sales statistics</a> (vector version: https://glvtl.com/assets/statistics-hub-four-markets.svg)</p>

Sources: Sarasota & Manatee CSV rows commercial_sales_since_2024, commercial_sales_qualified, commercial_sales_disqualified, qualcode_99_pending, sarasota_commercial_sales_2025_onward, sarasota_commercial_sales_disqualified_2025_onward, manatee_commercial_sales_2025_onward, manatee_commercial_sales_qualified, manatee_commercial_sales_disqualified · Miami-Dade CSV rows commercial_sales_2025_onward, commercial_sales_not_qualified · Mecklenburg CSV rows commercial_sales_2024_onward, commercial_sales_qualified, commercial_sales_not_qualified, commercial_sales_2025_onward, commercial_sales_2025_onward_not_qualified. Klebl, C., Sterling Digital Partners, 19–20 September 2026.

Question 02

How many recorded commercial sales have a price of $100 or less?

About a third: 30.6% in Sarasota County, 35.5% in Manatee and 33.1% in Miami-Dade. Mecklenburg County publishes the same problem in a different shape — 38.6% of its recorded commercial sales carry no usable price at all.

This is the single most practical number on the page, because it is the one a reader can check in ten minutes. A $10 or $100 sale price is the conventional placeholder used when a deed transfers property for no real consideration — into a trust, between two entities with the same owner, as a correction to an earlier deed. The price is a legal formality, not a valuation.

Roughly one in three recorded commercial sales in each of the three Florida counties carries such a price. Any tool that averages recorded sale prices without filtering on the qualification code is averaging those in. The three rates are close enough across very different counties — one of 304,544 live parcels, one of 236,531 and one of 938,308 — to be worth watching.

On the matched 2025-onward window the Florida figures stay in the same band: Sarasota publishes 31.2% — 453 of 1,450 sales at $100 or less — against Manatee’s 35.5% and Miami-Dade’s 33.1%, both of which are already counted on that window. Mecklenburg publishes no matched-window price count, so there is no fourth figure here and none has been constructed.

Mecklenburg County’s figure is not the same measurement and should not be quoted as if it were. North Carolina’s file does not lend itself to a $100 threshold; what it shows instead is an absent price. Of 4,511 recorded commercial sales since 2024, 892 (19.8%) carry a price of exactly $0 and 850 (18.8%) have the price field empty — 1,742 in total, 38.6%, with no usable price. A blank is not a cheap building; it is an absence, and an average that treats it as a zero is worse than one that drops it. Separately, 1,307 Mecklenburg sales (29.0%) carry validity code C, the county’s “transaction is for $3,000 or less”, which is the nearest thing in the North Carolina file to a nominal-price flag.

Sources: Sarasota CSV and Miami-Dade CSV, row commercial_sales_price_100_or_less in each · Mecklenburg CSV rows commercial_sales_no_usable_price, commercial_sales_price_exactly_zero, commercial_sales_price_field_empty, salescode_C_3000_or_less · Manatee rows manatee_commercial_sales_price_100_or_less and manatee_commercial_sales_2025_onward; Sarasota matched-window row sarasota_commercial_sales_price_100_or_less_2025_onward. The Florida and North Carolina figures count different things and are printed separately for that reason.

Question 03

What do the county sale-quality codes mean?

In all three Florida counties, the most common code outside the arm’s-length group is a corrective, quit-claim or tax deed with no consideration — 31.0% of Sarasota’s commercial sales, 33.8% of Manatee’s and 29.0% of Miami-Dade’s. In Mecklenburg, the most common nonblank validity code is C, a transaction for $3,000 or less, on 29.0% of recorded sales. Mecklenburg’s code screen is different: it includes 226 Code AG transfers the county describes as fair-market. Sarasota lists 19 qualification codes and Manatee 17.

Florida’s DOR list separates several reasons an assessor excludes a recorded transfer from market-value analysis. The distribution matters because the codes describe different situations; these shares are counts of all recorded sales, not slices of one pie. Mecklenburg uses a separate validity-code screen, and its all-nonblank study count includes Code AG fair-market, multi-parcel transfers.

Sarasota County commercial sales by qualification code, since 2024

Code and meaning	Sales	Share of 2,368
01 — Qualified as a result of deed examination ¶	934	39.4%
11 — Corrective, quit claim or tax deed, no consideration ¶	735	31.0%
05 — Qualified, multiple parcels ¶	295	12.5%
30 — Transactions involving affiliated parties ¶	91	3.8%
16 — Deeds conveying partial interest ¶	58	2.4%
99 — Qualification decision pending ¶	57	2.4%
02 — Qualified as a result of evidence ¶	55	2.3%
37 — Not exposed to open market, or parties not informed ¶	35	1.5%
11 further codes (30 qualified, 78 not qualified) ¶	108	4.6%

Source: Sarasota & Manatee CSV, rows qualcode_01_deed_examination through qualcode_distinct_codes_present. Counted 19 September 2026.

Manatee County commercial sales by qualification code, 2025 and 2026

Code and meaning	Sales	Share of 786
11 — Corrective, quit claim or tax deed, no consideration ¶	266	33.8%
01 — Qualified as a result of deed examination ¶	190	24.2%
05 — Qualified, multiple parcels ¶	148	18.8%
37 — Not exposed to open market, or parties not informed ¶	88	11.2%
30 — Transactions involving affiliated parties ¶	22	2.8%
40 — Other, disqualified ¶	17	2.2%
14 — Not qualified ¶	11	1.4%
03 — Qualified ¶	6	0.8%
9 further codes (6 qualified, 32 not qualified) ¶	38	4.8%

Manatee is where the ambiguity codes bite hardest. Code 37 — the sale was not exposed to the open market, or the parties were not informed — covers 88 of Manatee’s 786 commercial sales, 11.2%. In Sarasota the same code covers 35 of 2,368, 1.5%. Code 11, the corrective or no-consideration deed, runs at 33.8% in Manatee against 31.0% in Sarasota. Two adjacent counties on the same statute and the same code list do not produce the same distribution, which is the argument against reading any one county’s split as the Florida split.

Source: Sarasota & Manatee CSV, rows manatee_qualcode_11_corrective_quitclaim_taxdeed through manatee_qualcode_distinct_codes_present. Counted 20 September 2026. Codes 40, 14 and 03 are published in the CSV by number without a text description, and are printed here as the CSV names them. The window is 2025 and 2026, the single roll cycle the DOR sales data file holds.

The three largest Miami-Dade codes, 2025 onward

Code and meaning	Sales	Share of 4,614
01 — Qualified as a result of deed examination ¶	1,433	31.1%
11 — Corrective, quit claim or tax deed, no consideration ¶	1,338	29.0%
05 — Qualified, multiple parcels ¶	1,046	22.7%

Source: Miami-Dade CSV, rows qualcode_01_deed_examination, qualcode_11_corrective_quitclaim_taxdeed, qualcode_05_multiple_parcels. Counted 20 September 2026. The Miami-Dade study published these three codes only; a full code distribution for Miami-Dade has not been counted.

Mecklenburg County sale records by validity code, since 2024

Code and meaning	Sales	Share of 4,511
(blank) — qualified ¶	1,178	26.1%
C — Transaction is for $3,000 or less ¶	1,307	29.0%
A — Conveyance of 2 or more parcels ¶	1,183	26.2%
X — Other (explanation required) ¶	251	5.6%
AG — Fair market, 2 or more parcels (county description) ¶	226	5.0%
E — Related party ¶	79	1.8%
TEMP — Temporarily disqualified ¶	68	1.5%
F — Grantor conveying a fraction of an interest ¶	52	1.2%

Source: Mecklenburg CSV, rows commercial_sales_qualified and salescode_C_3000_or_less through salescode_F_fraction_interest. Counted 20 September 2026. The codes are Mecklenburg’s own and do not map directly onto Florida’s. The two largest categories — sub-$3,000 transfers and conveyances of two or more parcels (codes A and AG) — together cover 1,409 of 4,511 recorded commercial sales. Code AG (226 sales) is a conveyance the county describes as fair-market. This study nevertheless groups it with all nonblank validity codes for a consistent single-parcel screen; the 3,333 figure therefore includes AG. That screening label alone does not determine the economic nature of a transfer.

Question 04

Does the city in a property address tell you which municipality governs the property?

No — 77.4% of Miami-Dade addresses that mail as “Miami” are not in the City of Miami, 66.8% of Sarasota County commercial parcels with a “Sarasota” address are in unincorporated county, 23.9% of Mecklenburg County’s commercial parcels are outside the City of Charlotte, and 13,665 parcels carrying a “Sarasota” address are not in Sarasota County at all.

The postal city on an address is a mail-routing label. The municipality is the government that sets the zoning, issues the permits and levies the local millage. They are different fields and they disagree constantly.

In Miami-Dade, 328,540 of 613,901 address points in the county address layer (53.5%) have a mailing city of Miami. Only 77,311 — 12.6% of all address points — are actually in the City of Miami. The 254,328 in between are the trap.

In Sarasota County, 129,734 live parcels (42.6% of 304,544) carry a situs city of Sarasota. Of those, 101,809 — 78.5% — are governed by Sarasota County, not the City of Sarasota. Narrowed to commercial and industrial parcels the effect softens but does not go away: 6,442 commercial parcels have a Sarasota situs city, of which 4,301 (66.8%) are unincorporated and 2,141 (33.2%) are in the city.

In Manatee County the same field fails in a way the other counties cannot show, because the label crosses a county line. 13,665 parcels on Manatee’s roll — 5.8% of its 236,531 — carry a situs city of “Sarasota”, and 13,638 of them (99.8%) sit in a single ZIP code, 34243. Not one is inside a municipality: all 13,665 are unincorporated, and none is in Sarasota County. 917 of them are commercial or industrial — 12.6% of Manatee’s commercial stock — and all 917 are unincorporated too. A search filtered on the city “Sarasota” returns them; a search filtered on Sarasota County does not.

Manatee’s own principal postal name behaves the same way. Of 120,029 parcels with a Bradenton situs city — 50.7% of the county — 96,344 (80.3%) are outside the City of Bradenton and 23,685 (19.7%) are inside it. Of the 4,186 commercial parcels with a Bradenton address — 57.5% of Manatee’s commercial stock — 3,019 (72.1%) are unincorporated. County-wide, 194,828 of 236,531 Manatee parcels (82.4%) fall outside every municipal tax district and 41,703 (17.6%) fall inside one of seven.

On the roll side rather than the address side, Miami-Dade’s own physical-city field reads “Unincorporated County” for 395,369 parcels — 42.1% of the county — and for 16,530 commercial parcels, 29.0% of the commercial stock.

In Mecklenburg County the mistake costs the same thing by a different route. Of 20,794 commercial, industrial and office parcels, 15,829 (76.1%) are in the City of Charlotte and 4,965 (23.9%) are not: Cornelius 1,162, Huntersville 1,043, Matthews 776, Pineville 510, Mint Hill 349, Davidson 241, and 884 parcels — 4.3% of the commercial stock — in unincorporated Mecklenburg with no town government at all. Across all 428,758 parcels, 317,599 (74.1%) are in Charlotte and 31,950 (7.5%) are unincorporated. Each of the six towns runs its own zoning ordinance and its own permit desk, so roughly one commercial parcel in four is governed by a code that is not Charlotte’s.

Sources: Miami-Dade CSV rows address_points_mailing_as_miami, address_points_mailing_miami_not_city_of_miami, address_points_actually_city_of_miami, jurisdiction_unincorporated_roll, jurisdiction_unincorporated_commercial · Sarasota CSV rows sarasota_situs_live, sarasota_situs_unincorporated, sarasota_situs_commercial, sarasota_situs_commercial_unincorporated, sarasota_situs_commercial_city, and Manatee rows manatee_sarasota_situs, manatee_sarasota_situs_unincorporated, manatee_sarasota_situs_zip_34243, manatee_sarasota_situs_commercial, manatee_sarasota_situs_commercial_unincorporated, manatee_bradenton_situs, manatee_bradenton_situs_unincorporated, manatee_bradenton_situs_city, manatee_bradenton_situs_commercial, manatee_bradenton_situs_commercial_unincorporated, manatee_parcels_incorporated, manatee_parcels_unincorporated · Mecklenburg CSV rows jurisdiction_commercial_charlotte, jurisdiction_commercial_not_charlotte, jurisdiction_commercial_cornelius, jurisdiction_commercial_huntersville, jurisdiction_commercial_matthews, jurisdiction_commercial_pineville, jurisdiction_commercial_mint_hill, jurisdiction_commercial_davidson, jurisdiction_commercial_unincorporated, jurisdiction_all_parcels_charlotte, jurisdiction_all_parcels_unincorporated.

Question 05

How far below market value are commercial properties assessed?

In Florida, the median commercial parcel is assessed at 97.0% of just value in Sarasota County, 100.0% in Manatee on the non-school basis and 91.8% in Miami-Dade, and the median hides a long tail: 20.7%, 14.9% and 30.3% of commercial parcels respectively are assessed below three-quarters of just value. North Carolina has no gap of this kind to measure — 99.9% of Mecklenburg parcels carry a total value exactly equal to market value — and its version of the problem is a dated basis rather than a cap.

The first half of this section is Florida-only, and deliberately so. Florida separates just value (the appraiser’s estimate of market value), assessed value (just value after statutory caps) and taxable value (assessed value after exemptions). The distance between the first two is the accumulated effect of assessment caps, and it grows the longer a property is held. “Just value”, the DOR qualification code and the school / non-school assessed split are Florida statutory terms with no North Carolina equivalent; the Mecklenburg figures further down are a different measurement, printed separately for that reason.

South Carolina: the gap is a function of how long you have held it

South Carolina makes this measurable in a way neither Florida nor North Carolina does, because it resets a property’s taxable value when the property changes hands. Under S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-3140(B) a countywide reassessment may raise a value by at most 15% in a five-year cycle, and that limit expressly does not apply when an assessable transfer of interest occurs. Reassessment creeps; a sale jumps. So the gap between what a commercial property is worth and what it is taxed on sorts almost perfectly by the year it last sold.

Last sold	Berkeley County commercial (of 3,357)	Dorchester County 6% class (of 26,182)
Before 2012 ¶	44.3% below market	54.7% below market
2012–2014 ¶	37.8%	49.8%
2015–2017 ¶	26.5%	40.2%
2018–2021 ¶	15.0%	25.6%
2022–2025 ¶	0.0%	0.0%

Median shortfall of taxable value below the county’s own market value, by the year the property last changed hands. Berkeley and Dorchester run unrelated CAMA systems and produce the same monotonic gradient. Counted 20 September 2026; Dorchester’s extract is a 2024 vintage. CSV · study No. 05

Read across the three states, the series now has a control. North Carolina has no cap at all — 99.9% of Mecklenburg parcels carry a total value exactly equal to market value. Florida limits how fast an assessment may grow each year, which produces a gap that widens gradually with tenure. South Carolina resets on transfer, which produces a gap that collapses to zero the moment a property sells. Three statutory designs, three distinguishable shapes in the data, all counted the same way.

And a relief that appears to go unclaimed. S.C. Code Ann. §12-37-3135 gives a commercial buyer an exemption worth 25% of the transfer value, but only if the owner notifies the assessor before 31 January. Of the 742 Berkeley commercial parcels last sold between 2022 and 2025, 52 — 7.0% — are taxed as though that exemption applies, and 407, 54.9%, are taxed on the full market value with no exemption visible. This counts an effect in the record rather than applications filed, and the statute’s own floor and exclusions give honest reasons a parcel might show none.

Tennessee: the class is set by statute, and a duplex can be in either one

Tennessee does not assess at market value at all, which makes it the cleanest case in the series. Its constitution fixes the ratio by subclass — 40% for industrial and commercial property, 25% for residential and farm — so the gap measured in Florida and South Carolina does not exist here. Divide assessed by appraised value in Davidson County and 235,751 parcels return exactly 0.25 and 29,676 return exactly 0.40, with only 666 at any other ratio.

What Tennessee has instead is a classification line that moves. Art. II §28 defines residential property “containing two (2) or more rental units” as industrial and commercial property, so the same duplex is commercial when both halves are let and residential when the owner lives in one. The county’s own arithmetic tracks the rule with unusual precision:

Davidson County code	At 25% residential	At 40% commercial
011 Single family ¶	148,423	1,030
012 Duplex ¶	2,045	4,799
013 Triplex ¶	3	342
014 Quadplex ¶	0	235

The split appears at the duplex, the only structure where an owner moving in can drop the rental count to one, and essentially nowhere above it. Counted 20 September 2026. CSV · study No. 06. The Tennessee Attorney General addressed this exact question in Opinion 25-016 (2025) and declined to set a bright-line rule, so the pattern holds in aggregate and should not be read onto any single parcel.

Four states, four designs. North Carolina assesses at 100% of market value with no cap. Florida caps annual growth, which opens a gap that widens with tenure. South Carolina resets on transfer, which opens a gap that collapses when a property sells. Tennessee assesses a statutory fraction, so there is no gap to measure at all — only the question of which fraction applies.

Commercial parcels assessed below a share of just value

Assessed below…	Sarasota (of 10,933)	Manatee (of 7,277)	Miami-Dade (of 56,907)
99% of just value ¶	5,740 · 52.5%	2,841 · 39.0%	34,709 · 61.0%
95% of just value ¶	5,174 · 47.3%	2,422 · 33.3%	31,209 · 54.8%
90% of just value ¶	4,458 · 40.8%	1,945 · 26.7%	27,160 · 47.7%
75% of just value ¶	2,265 · 20.7%	1,082 · 14.9%	17,245 · 30.3%
50% of just value ¶	480 · 4.4%	390 · 5.4%	4,661 · 8.2%

Sources: Sarasota CSV and Miami-Dade CSV, rows assessed_below_99pct_of_just through assessed_below_50pct_of_just, and Manatee rows manatee_assessed_below_99pct_of_just through manatee_assessed_below_50pct_of_just. Sarasota’s denominator is the 10,933 of 10,934 commercial parcels carrying a just value above zero; Manatee’s is all 7,277 commercial parcels, every one of which carries a just value above zero; Miami-Dade’s is all 56,907 commercial parcels. Manatee’s column is the non-school assessed value against just value, the same basis as Miami-Dade’s and not the same as Sarasota’s.

The three Florida counties are not measuring quite the same thing and should not be placed side by side without saying so. Sarasota’s median of 97.0% is a single assessed-over-just ratio, with the median taxable-over-just ratio at 96.0%. Miami-Dade’s 91.8% and Manatee’s 100.0% are specifically the non-school assessed ratio, because Florida applies a different basis for school millage. Across Miami-Dade’s commercial stock the school assessed value is 99.7% of just value while the non-school assessed value is 86.8%.

Manatee County is the case where the median tells you nothing. Its median non-school assessed-to-just ratio is 100.0% — the middle commercial parcel in the county carries no gap at all — and yet 2,841 of its 7,277 commercial parcels, 39.0%, are assessed below 99% of just value and 390, 5.4%, below half of it. Aggregated, Manatee’s commercial school assessed value is 100.0% of just value against 94.8% on the non-school basis. A median is not a distribution, and on this measure Manatee is the clearest demonstration of it in the series.

Sources: Sarasota rows median_assessed_over_just, median_taxable_over_just, commercial_valued · Manatee rows manatee_median_nonschool_assessed_over_just, manatee_commercial_valued, manatee_total_school_assessed_commercial, manatee_total_nonschool_assessed_commercial · Miami-Dade rows median_nonschool_assessed_over_just, school_assessed_share_of_just, nonschool_assessed_share_of_just.

Mecklenburg County, North Carolina: no cap, but a dated basis

The Florida finding cannot exist in North Carolina, and that is worth as much as the finding itself. North Carolina requires counties to assess at 100% of market value and applies no cap on increases. Mecklenburg does exactly that: of 413,351 parcels carrying a market value, 412,829 — 99.9% — carry a total value exactly equal to it. Only 522 (0.1%) fall below, through present-use value and similar deferrals, and none at all sit above. There are not two numbers to diverge.

What Mecklenburg has instead is a calendar. Every value in the county file is an opinion of market value as of 1 January 2023, the date of the county’s last revaluation; the next one is effective 1 January 2027. Measured against what buyers actually paid, that basis is well behind the market. Across 743 blank-code commercial sales in 2025 and 2026 on parcels carrying a market value, the median sale went for 1.53 times the county’s figure, and 658 of 743 — 88.6% — sold above it. These records pass the study’s single-parcel screen; Code AG transfers are excluded because they cover multiple parcels.

Sale price as a multiple of the county’s market value	Ratio
10th percentile ¶	0.99×
25th percentile ¶	1.17×
Median ¶	1.53×
75th percentile ¶	1.94×
90th percentile ¶	2.63×

Source: Mecklenburg CSV rows parcels_with_market_value, total_value_equals_market_value, total_value_below_market_value, total_value_above_market_value, qualified_commercial_sales_2025_onward_with_value, sale_to_market_ratio_median, sale_to_market_ratio_p10, sale_to_market_ratio_p25, sale_to_market_ratio_p75, sale_to_market_ratio_p90, commercial_sales_above_county_market_value, commercial_sales_at_or_below_market_value. Counted 20 September 2026. The ratio measures parcels that traded; it is not an estimate of what unsold commercial property in Mecklenburg is worth, and a sale price can include things the parcel record does not. It is not comparable with the Florida assessed-to-just ratios above, which measure a statutory cap rather than a market movement.

Question 06

How much commercial value sits in the gap between just and assessed value?

$19.49bn in Miami-Dade County — 13.2% of its commercial just value — $1.58bn in Sarasota County, 9.1% of its commercial just value, and $0.51bn in Manatee County, 5.2% of its commercial just value.

Miami-Dade’s commercial and industrial stock carries $147,842,566,502 in just value against $128,350,516,135 in non-school assessed value. Sarasota’s carries $17,271,381,200 against $15,691,613,636. Manatee’s carries $9,739,708,280 in just value against $9,230,019,407 in non-school assessed value, a difference of $509,688,873 — 5.2%, the smallest share of the three Florida counties.

In Miami-Dade there is a second, sharper figure inside the first. Because the school-tax basis is not capped, $19,120,443,450 of commercial value is exposed to school millage and not to county millage — and 56,705 of 56,907 commercial parcels (99.6%) have a school assessed value exactly equal to just value. A buyer who reads only the assessed value on the record is reading the county figure, not the one the school district will bill against.

Manatee shows the same school / non-school split as Miami-Dade and shows it almost perfectly. 7,255 of its 7,277 commercial parcels — 99.7% — carry a school assessed value exactly equal to just value, and $506,776,325 of commercial value is therefore exposed to school millage but not to county millage. Nearly the whole Manatee gap is that one mechanism. A single building shows it end to end: account 6656500003 on Rome Avenue carries a just value of $2,029,678, a school assessed value of exactly $2,029,678, and a non-school assessed value of $1,646,098 — 81.1% — sheltering $383,580 from county millage on one parcel.

There is no fourth figure here, because Mecklenburg County has no gap to aggregate. With 412,829 of 413,351 valued parcels carrying a total value exactly equal to market value and none above it, the North Carolina record holds one number where the Florida record holds two. The dollar figures in this section are Florida-only and should be quoted as Florida figures.

Sources: Miami-Dade CSV rows total_just_value_commercial, total_nonschool_assessed_commercial, aggregate_assessed_below_just, value_exposed_to_school_millage_only, parcels_school_assessed_equals_just · Sarasota CSV rows total_just_value_commercial, total_assessed_value_commercial, aggregate_assessed_below_just, and Manatee rows manatee_total_just_value_commercial, manatee_total_school_assessed_commercial, manatee_total_nonschool_assessed_commercial, manatee_aggregate_nonschool_assessed_below_just, manatee_value_sheltered_from_nonschool_only, manatee_parcels_school_assessed_equals_just, manatee_rome_ave_just_value, manatee_rome_ave_school_assessed, manatee_rome_ave_nonschool_assessed, manatee_rome_ave_sheltered_from_county · Mecklenburg CSV rows total_value_equals_market_value, total_value_above_market_value. The $bn figures are the published dollar rows rounded for reading; the exact rows are printed beside them.

Question 07

How often do two parcels share an address that differs only by a directional prefix?

Rarely in most counties — 0.3% of parcels in Sarasota and Miami-Dade — but not everywhere: 2.1% of Manatee County parcels are in a directional collision, the highest rate in the series. Mecklenburg County could not be tested this way and was measured by distance instead: 0.2% of its parcels sit behind an address shared with a parcel a mile or more away.

Address collisions — two distinct parcels at 100 Main St N and 100 Main St S — are the kind of error people expect to be everywhere. We looked for them and they are not. In Sarasota County, 337 of 230,059 distinct address keys (0.1%) carry two or more non-blank directional values, drawing in 950 parcels. In Miami-Dade, 1,280 of 886,549 distinct address keys (0.1%) do, drawing in 2,566 parcels.

Manatee County is the exception, and it is the reason this section is no longer a clean null result. Of 222,651 distinct address keys on Manatee’s roll, 1,892 — 0.8% — carry two or more directional values, drawing in 4,993 parcels, 2.1% of the county. In Sarasota, immediately to the south, the comparable key share is 0.1% and the parcel share 0.3%. The two keys are built close but not identically — Sarasota holds the directional prefix in its own field, Manatee has it inside the street name and the key is built with it stripped out — and Manatee’s key also admits the diagonal directions NE, NW, SE and SW, which Sarasota’s test does not. Some of the gap is that. Not all of it plausibly is, and we publish the number without an explanation for it rather than smoothing it away.

For commercial property specifically the effect is smaller still: in Miami-Dade just 20 collision keys touch 40 commercial parcels, 0.1% of the commercial stock. We publish this because it is what the count found. If you are worried about property-record quality, the directional prefix is not where the risk is; the sales qualification code is.

Mecklenburg County cannot be counted the same way, because its street-name column has usually had the directional prefix taken out of it. North Main Street and South Main Street are both stored as MAIN ST, so only 2,822 of 388,991 distinct address keys — 0.7% — carry a direction at all, and on 89 of those (3.2%) two or more different directions share one key, most of them East, South and West Boulevard, three separate streets that reduce to BV. The directional test has almost nothing to bite on.

Study No. 03 used the county’s published parcel coordinates instead and measured how far apart the parcels behind a shared address actually are. Of 388,991 address keys, 3,704 (1.0%) hold more than one parcel — mostly honest stacks of condominium units and outbuildings — but on 218 of those keys (5.9%) the parcels sit at least a mile apart on the ground, covering 827 parcels, 0.2% of the county. 83 of the 218 (38.1%) straddle two or more municipalities and 172 (78.9%) include a commercial parcel, drawing in 305 commercial parcels, 1.5% of the commercial stock. That last figure is an order of magnitude above Miami-Dade’s 0.1%, but the two are not the same test and should not be read as a trend: the one-mile threshold is a judgement, stated so it can be argued with.

Sources: Sarasota CSV rows address_keys_distinct, address_keys_multiple_direction_values, address_keys_multiple_nonblank_directions, parcels_in_direction_collisions, and Manatee rows manatee_address_keys_distinct, manatee_address_keys_multiple_directions, manatee_parcels_in_direction_collisions · Miami-Dade CSV rows address_keys_distinct, address_keys_multiple_nonblank_directions, parcels_in_direction_collisions, commercial_direction_collision_keys, commercial_parcels_in_direction_collisions · Mecklenburg CSV rows address_keys_distinct, address_keys_two_or_more_parcels, address_keys_one_mile_or_more_apart, parcels_in_one_mile_collisions, address_keys_spanning_two_or_more_municipalities, address_keys_collision_including_commercial, commercial_parcels_in_collisions, address_keys_carrying_a_direction, address_keys_holding_two_directions. The four counties build their address key differently — Sarasota on house number, street and situs city; Manatee on house number and street with the direction removed, plus situs city; Miami-Dade on house number, street with the directional prefix removed, and 5-digit ZIP; Mecklenburg on house number and street with any leading direction word removed — and Mecklenburg’s collision test is a distance measurement rather than a directional one, so the key counts are not directly comparable.

Question 08

Can these figures be cited as national statistics?

No. Every number on this page is a count of nine named US counties on stated dates, and nothing here has been weighted, modelled or projected to any larger population.

These records show that sale-quality coding can materially narrow the set of transactions an analyst treats as market evidence, and that each county uses its own definitions. In Mecklenburg, this study’s single-parcel screen counts every nonblank code outside the screen, including 226 AG transfers the county describes as fair-market. Read the code description and deed before using a recorded price as a comparable.

What reproduced, and what did not

Manatee County is the series’ first same-market replication, and it did not simply repeat Sarasota. It is the second county in field study No. 01, counted from a different source file — the state DOR roll rather than the county appraiser’s own export — under the same statute and the same code list. On both traps that turn on ambiguity it came out worse: 55.5% of its commercial sales are not qualified against Sarasota’s 47.1% on the matched window, and 2.1% of its parcels sit in a directional address collision against Sarasota’s 0.3%. Two adjacent counties in one metropolitan area are not one number either, which is the same caution as the national one at a smaller scale.

The Florida assessment gap cannot exist in North Carolina. Studies No. 01 and No. 02 both found a large distance between a Florida parcel’s just value and its assessed value — $1.58bn in Sarasota, $19.49bn in Miami-Dade — created by Florida’s cap on assessment increases. North Carolina assesses at 100% of market value and caps nothing, so Mecklenburg carries one number where Florida carries two: 412,829 of 413,351 valued parcels have a total value exactly equal to market value, 99.9%, and none sit above it. The finding did not weaken across the state line; it became structurally impossible, which is a different and more informative result. Mecklenburg’s equivalent trap is a calendar rather than a cap, and it is counted in Question 05.

Miami-Dade’s postal-city trap is not claimed for Mecklenburg. The 77.4% figure depends on Miami-Dade publishing postal city and governing municipality as two fields that disagree. Mecklenburg’s city field carries the jurisdiction, not the postal city, and its six towns have their own postal names and ZIP codes, so there is nothing in that file to measure. We looked, we could not reproduce it, and we are not claiming it. What Mecklenburg does show is the jurisdiction split in Question 04, which costs a reader the same mistake by a different route.

Two non-results out of four traps, in the first market outside Florida, is the honest shape of this. A method that travels intact everywhere is usually a method that has not been tested. The series is planned for ten markets; the honest scope of this page today is nine counties in five states, from six field studies.

Question 09

Where can I download the underlying data?

All 457 counted figures are published as one spreadsheet (CSV) and as the same rows in JSON, under CC BY 4.0, free to reuse commercially with attribution.

Every row carries the market, the metric name, the value, the denominator, the share, the counting note, the source file, the date the source file was published and the date we counted it. The file was generated mechanically from the six study CSVs rather than typed, so a row here and the row in the study CSV are the same row — including the manatee_ prefix the Manatee rows carry in their source file. It covers seven markets in 457 rows: 41 Sarasota, 49 Manatee, 31 Miami-Dade, 50 Mecklenburg, 62 Harris, 99 Charleston Tri-County and 125 Davidson County. Study No. 01’s CSV holds two counties, which is why seven markets come from six files.

Reuse is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International. You may republish, chart, transform and sell work built on these figures. The one condition is attribution: name Chris Klebl and Sterling Digital Partners and link back to this page.

The file only ever grows. Harris County, Texas was added as study No. 04, Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina as study No. 05 and Davidson County, Tennessee as study No. 06, each appended as a block under the same schema with its own market, source and date. Every row published before is byte-identical and still in its original position. The only things that changed are the metrics count, markets_covered and the sources list, which now has six entries. A new market will be added the same way.

All figures

Every counted figure

457 counted figures from six field studies across nine counties in five states.

One row per entry in statistics.json, in file order. Value and denominator are printed together, as in the tables above; Share is the counted share where the entry carries one. Study links to the field study the figure was counted in, and Counted is the date it was counted.

Every counted figure in statistics.json, one row per entry.

Figure	Value	Share	Market	Study	Counted
parcels_total_rows ¶	325,522	—	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
parcels_live ¶	304,544 of 325,522	93.6%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
parcels_commercial_industrial ¶	10,934 of 304,544	3.6%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
sarasota_situs_live ¶	129,734 of 304,544	42.6%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
sarasota_situs_unincorporated ¶	101,809 of 129,734	78.5%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
sarasota_situs_city_of_sarasota ¶	27,925 of 129,734	21.5%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
sarasota_situs_commercial ¶	6,442 of 10,934	58.9%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
sarasota_situs_commercial_unincorporated ¶	4,301 of 6,442	66.8%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
sarasota_situs_commercial_city ¶	2,141 of 6,442	33.2%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
commercial_valued ¶	10,933 of 10,934	100.0%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
median_assessed_over_just ¶	97.0%	—	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
median_taxable_over_just ¶	96.0%	—	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
assessed_below_99pct_of_just ¶	5,740 of 10,933	52.5%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
assessed_below_95pct_of_just ¶	5,174 of 10,933	47.3%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
assessed_below_90pct_of_just ¶	4,458 of 10,933	40.8%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
assessed_below_75pct_of_just ¶	2,265 of 10,933	20.7%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
assessed_below_50pct_of_just ¶	480 of 10,933	4.4%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
total_just_value_commercial ¶	17,271,381,200	—	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
total_assessed_value_commercial ¶	15,691,613,636	—	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
aggregate_assessed_below_just ¶	1,579,767,564 of 17,271,381,200	9.1%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
address_keys_distinct ¶	230,059	—	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
address_keys_multiple_direction_values ¶	410 of 230,059	0.2%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
address_keys_multiple_nonblank_directions ¶	337 of 230,059	0.1%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
parcels_in_direction_collisions ¶	950 of 304,544	0.3%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
commercial_sales_since_2024 ¶	2,368	—	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
commercial_sales_qualified ¶	1,314 of 2,368	55.5%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
commercial_sales_disqualified ¶	1,054 of 2,368	44.5%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
commercial_sales_price_100_or_less ¶	725 of 2,368	30.6%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
qualcode_01_deed_examination ¶	934 of 2,368	39.4%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
qualcode_11_corrective_quitclaim_taxdeed ¶	735 of 2,368	31.0%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
qualcode_05_multiple_parcels ¶	295 of 2,368	12.5%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
qualcode_30_affiliated_parties ¶	91 of 2,368	3.8%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
qualcode_16_partial_interest ¶	58 of 2,368	2.4%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
qualcode_99_pending ¶	57 of 2,368	2.4%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
qualcode_02_evidence ¶	55 of 2,368	2.3%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
qualcode_37_not_open_market ¶	35 of 2,368	1.5%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
qualcode_all_other_11_codes ¶	108 of 2,368	4.6%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
qualcode_distinct_codes_present ¶	19	—	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
parcels_total ¶	938,308	—	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
parcels_commercial_industrial ¶	56,907 of 938,308	6.1%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
jurisdiction_unincorporated_roll ¶	395,369 of 938,308	42.1%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
jurisdiction_unincorporated_commercial ¶	16,530 of 56,907	29.0%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
address_points_mailing_as_miami ¶	328,540 of 613,901	53.5%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
address_points_mailing_miami_not_city_of_miami ¶	254,328 of 328,540	77.4%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
address_points_actually_city_of_miami ¶	77,311 of 613,901	12.6%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
commercial_sales_2025_onward ¶	4,614	—	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
commercial_sales_not_qualified ¶	2,129 of 4,614	46.1%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
commercial_sales_price_100_or_less ¶	1,526 of 4,614	33.1%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
qualcode_01_deed_examination ¶	1,433 of 4,614	31.1%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
qualcode_11_corrective_quitclaim_taxdeed ¶	1,338 of 4,614	29.0%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
qualcode_05_multiple_parcels ¶	1,046 of 4,614	22.7%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
median_nonschool_assessed_over_just ¶	91.8%	—	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
assessed_below_99pct_of_just ¶	34,709 of 56,907	61.0%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
assessed_below_95pct_of_just ¶	31,209 of 56,907	54.8%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
assessed_below_90pct_of_just ¶	27,160 of 56,907	47.7%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
assessed_below_75pct_of_just ¶	17,245 of 56,907	30.3%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
assessed_below_50pct_of_just ¶	4,661 of 56,907	8.2%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
total_just_value_commercial ¶	147,842,566,502	—	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
total_nonschool_assessed_commercial ¶	128,350,516,135	—	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
aggregate_assessed_below_just ¶	19,492,050,367 of 147,842,566,502	13.2%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
school_assessed_share_of_just ¶	99.7%	—	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
nonschool_assessed_share_of_just ¶	86.8%	—	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
parcels_school_assessed_equals_just ¶	56,705 of 56,907	99.6%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
value_exposed_to_school_millage_only ¶	19,120,443,450	—	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
address_keys_distinct ¶	886,549	—	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
address_keys_multiple_nonblank_directions ¶	1,280 of 886,549	0.1%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
parcels_in_direction_collisions ¶	2,566 of 938,308	0.3%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
commercial_direction_collision_keys ¶	20	—	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
commercial_parcels_in_direction_collisions ¶	40 of 56,907	0.1%	Miami-Dade County, Florida	No. 02	2026-09-20
rows_in_cama_table ¶	448,427	—	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
parcels_distinct ¶	428,758	—	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
parcels_commercial_industrial_office ¶	20,794 of 428,758	4.8%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
commercial_sales_2024_onward ¶	4,511	—	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
commercial_sales_not_qualified ¶	3,333 of 4,511	73.9%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
commercial_sales_qualified ¶	1,178 of 4,511	26.1%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
commercial_sales_price_exactly_zero ¶	892 of 4,511	19.8%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
commercial_sales_price_field_empty ¶	850 of 4,511	18.8%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
commercial_sales_no_usable_price ¶	1,742 of 4,511	38.6%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
salescode_C_3000_or_less ¶	1,307 of 4,511	29.0%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
salescode_A_two_or_more_parcels ¶	1,183 of 4,511	26.2%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
salescode_X_other ¶	251 of 4,511	5.6%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
salescode_AG_fair_market_two_or_more_parcels ¶	226 of 4,511	5.0%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
salescode_E_related_party ¶	79 of 4,511	1.8%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
salescode_TEMP_temporarily_disqualified ¶	68 of 4,511	1.5%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
salescode_F_fraction_interest ¶	52 of 4,511	1.2%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
commercial_sales_2025_onward ¶	2,834	—	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
commercial_sales_2025_onward_not_qualified ¶	2,091 of 2,834	73.8%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
jurisdiction_commercial_charlotte ¶	15,829 of 20,794	76.1%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
jurisdiction_commercial_not_charlotte ¶	4,965 of 20,794	23.9%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
jurisdiction_commercial_cornelius ¶	1,162 of 20,794	5.6%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
jurisdiction_commercial_huntersville ¶	1,043 of 20,794	5.0%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
jurisdiction_commercial_unincorporated ¶	884 of 20,794	4.3%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
jurisdiction_commercial_matthews ¶	776 of 20,794	3.7%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
jurisdiction_commercial_pineville ¶	510 of 20,794	2.5%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
jurisdiction_commercial_mint_hill ¶	349 of 20,794	1.7%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
jurisdiction_commercial_davidson ¶	241 of 20,794	1.2%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
jurisdiction_all_parcels_charlotte ¶	317,599 of 428,758	74.1%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
jurisdiction_all_parcels_unincorporated ¶	31,950 of 428,758	7.5%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
parcels_with_market_value ¶	413,351	—	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
total_value_equals_market_value ¶	412,829 of 413,351	99.9%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
total_value_below_market_value ¶	522 of 413,351	0.1%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
total_value_above_market_value ¶	0 of 413,351	0.0%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
qualified_commercial_sales_2025_onward_with_value ¶	743	—	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
sale_to_market_ratio_median ¶	1.53	—	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
sale_to_market_ratio_p10 ¶	0.99	—	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
sale_to_market_ratio_p25 ¶	1.17	—	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
sale_to_market_ratio_p75 ¶	1.94	—	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
sale_to_market_ratio_p90 ¶	2.63	—	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
commercial_sales_above_county_market_value ¶	658 of 743	88.6%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
commercial_sales_at_or_below_market_value ¶	85 of 743	11.4%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
address_keys_distinct ¶	388,991	—	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
address_keys_two_or_more_parcels ¶	3,704 of 388,991	1.0%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
address_keys_one_mile_or_more_apart ¶	218 of 3,704	5.9%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
parcels_in_one_mile_collisions ¶	827 of 428,758	0.2%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
address_keys_spanning_two_or_more_municipalities ¶	83 of 218	38.1%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
address_keys_collision_including_commercial ¶	172 of 218	78.9%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
commercial_parcels_in_collisions ¶	305 of 20,794	1.5%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
address_keys_carrying_a_direction ¶	2,822 of 388,991	0.7%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
address_keys_holding_two_directions ¶	89 of 2,822	3.2%	Mecklenburg County, North Carolina	No. 03	2026-09-20
sarasota_commercial_sales_2025_onward ¶	1,450	—	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
sarasota_commercial_sales_disqualified_2025_onward ¶	683 of 1,450	47.1%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
sarasota_commercial_sales_price_100_or_less_2025_onward ¶	453 of 1,450	31.2%	Sarasota County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-19
manatee_parcels_total_rows ¶	236,531	—	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_parcels_commercial_industrial ¶	7,277 of 236,531	3.1%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_parcels_multifamily_10plus_excluded ¶	243 of 236,531	0.1%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_parcels_incorporated ¶	41,703 of 236,531	17.6%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_parcels_unincorporated ¶	194,828 of 236,531	82.4%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_sarasota_situs ¶	13,665 of 236,531	5.8%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_sarasota_situs_unincorporated ¶	13,665 of 13,665	100.0%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_sarasota_situs_zip_34243 ¶	13,638 of 13,665	99.8%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_sarasota_situs_commercial ¶	917 of 7,277	12.6%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_sarasota_situs_commercial_unincorporated ¶	917 of 917	100.0%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_bradenton_situs ¶	120,029 of 236,531	50.7%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_bradenton_situs_unincorporated ¶	96,344 of 120,029	80.3%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_bradenton_situs_city ¶	23,685 of 120,029	19.7%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_bradenton_situs_commercial ¶	4,186 of 7,277	57.5%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_bradenton_situs_commercial_unincorporated ¶	3,019 of 4,186	72.1%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_commercial_valued ¶	7,277 of 7,277	100.0%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_median_nonschool_assessed_over_just ¶	100.0%	—	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_assessed_below_99pct_of_just ¶	2,841 of 7,277	39.0%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_assessed_below_95pct_of_just ¶	2,422 of 7,277	33.3%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_assessed_below_90pct_of_just ¶	1,945 of 7,277	26.7%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_assessed_below_75pct_of_just ¶	1,082 of 7,277	14.9%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_assessed_below_50pct_of_just ¶	390 of 7,277	5.4%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_total_just_value_commercial ¶	9,739,708,280	—	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_total_school_assessed_commercial ¶	9,736,795,732 of 9,739,708,280	100.0%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_total_nonschool_assessed_commercial ¶	9,230,019,407 of 9,739,708,280	94.8%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_aggregate_nonschool_assessed_below_just ¶	509,688,873 of 9,739,708,280	5.2%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_value_sheltered_from_nonschool_only ¶	506,776,325 of 9,739,708,280	5.2%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_parcels_school_assessed_equals_just ¶	7,255 of 7,277	99.7%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_address_keys_distinct ¶	222,651	—	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_address_keys_multiple_directions ¶	1,892 of 222,651	0.8%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_parcels_in_direction_collisions ¶	4,993 of 236,531	2.1%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_commercial_sales_2025_onward ¶	786	—	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_commercial_sales_qualified ¶	350 of 786	44.5%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_commercial_sales_disqualified ¶	436 of 786	55.5%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_commercial_sales_price_100_or_less ¶	279 of 786	35.5%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_qualcode_11_corrective_quitclaim_taxdeed ¶	266 of 786	33.8%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_qualcode_01_deed_examination ¶	190 of 786	24.2%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_qualcode_05_multiple_parcels ¶	148 of 786	18.8%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_qualcode_37_not_open_market ¶	88 of 786	11.2%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_qualcode_30_affiliated_parties ¶	22 of 786	2.8%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_qualcode_40_other_disqualified ¶	17 of 786	2.2%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_qualcode_14_not_qualified ¶	11 of 786	1.4%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_qualcode_03_qualified ¶	6 of 786	0.8%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_qualcode_all_other_9_codes ¶	38 of 786	4.8%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_qualcode_distinct_codes_present ¶	17	—	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_rome_ave_just_value ¶	2,029,678	—	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_rome_ave_school_assessed ¶	2,029,678 of 2,029,678	100.0%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_rome_ave_nonschool_assessed ¶	1,646,098 of 2,029,678	81.1%	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
manatee_rome_ave_sheltered_from_county ¶	383,580	—	Manatee County, Florida	No. 01	2026-09-20
hcad_accounts_total ¶	1,628,306	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_accounts_f1_f2 ¶	71,276	4.4%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_appraised_value_usd ¶	215,965,476,446	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
taxing_districts_in_table ¶	1,078	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
taxing_districts_on_commercial ¶	748	69.4%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
city_codes_in_block_051_086 ¶	34	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
cities_holding_commercial ¶	31	91.2%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_in_no_city ¶	25,031	35.1%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_in_a_city ¶	46,245	64.9%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_in_two_cities ¶	46	0.1%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_with_no_jurs_at_all ¶	11	0.0%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
value_no_city_usd ¶	86,073,628,876	39.9%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
value_in_city_usd ¶	129,891,847,570	60.1%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
houston_accounts ¶	35,807	50.2%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
houston_value_usd ¶	105,073,758,786	48.7%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
city_accounts_city_of_pasadena ¶	2,733	3.8%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
city_accounts_city_of_baytown ¶	1,727	2.4%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
city_accounts_city_of_south_houston ¶	864	1.2%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
city_accounts_city_of_laporte ¶	814	1.1%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
city_accounts_city_of_humble ¶	780	1.1%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
no_city_in_utility_district ¶	12,665	17.8%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
no_city_county_only ¶	12,366	17.3%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
value_no_city_in_utility_district_usd ¶	37,982,790,210	44.1%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
no_city_in_utility_district_broad ¶	13,222	18.6%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
no_city_county_only_broad ¶	11,809	16.6%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
utility_districts_holding_no_city_commercial ¶	398	61.1%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
utility_districts_holding_no_city_commercial_broad ¶	408	61.1%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
utility_district_hc_wcid_21 ¶	440	3.5%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
utility_district_hc_wcid_36 ¶	328	2.6%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
utility_district_hc_ud_16 ¶	322	2.5%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
utility_district_cimarron_mud ¶	308	2.4%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
utility_district_bridgestone_mud ¶	242	1.9%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
mean_taxing_jurisdictions ¶	8.58	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-22
max_taxing_jurisdictions ¶	13	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-22
tirz_codes_in_table ¶	135 of 1,078	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-22
commercial_with_a_tirz_code ¶	10,840 of 71,272	15.2%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-22
mean_taxing_jurisdictions_in_city ¶	8.40	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-22
mean_taxing_jurisdictions_no_city ¶	8.91	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-22
mean_taxing_jurisdictions_no_city_in_utility ¶	9.37	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-22
commercial_taxed_by_10_or_more ¶	8,895	12.5%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-22
commercial_taxed_by_7_or_more ¶	71,143	99.8%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
distinct_commercial_site_addresses ¶	64,713	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
addresses_used_by_more_than_one ¶	3,473	5.4%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_sharing_an_address ¶	10,036	14.1%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_address_no_house_number ¶	4,089	5.7%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
addresses_used_by_more_than_one_excl_placeholder ¶	2,844	4.4%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_sharing_an_address_excl_placeholder ¶	7,388	10.4%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
largest_address_group ¶	112	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
shared_addresses_spanning_more_than_one_key_map ¶	739	21.3%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_sharing_address_across_key_maps ¶	3,087	4.3%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_sharing_address_across_key_maps_excl_placeholder ¶	1,296	1.8%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_with_no_key_map ¶	184	0.3%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
recorded_conveyances_in_deeds_txt ¶	2,554,729	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
deeds_txt_columns ¶	5	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
deeds_txt_price_columns ¶	0	0.0%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
conveyances_with_a_date_and_no_price ¶	2,554,729	100.0%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_conveyance_rows ¶	95,150	3.7%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_accounts_with_a_conveyance ¶	49,225	69.1%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_conveyance_earliest_year ¶	1,899	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_conveyance_latest_year ¶	2,025	—	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_accounts_with_new_own_dt ¶	71,261	100.0%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
commercial_accounts_with_yr_annexed ¶	0	0.0%	Harris County, Texas	No. 04	2026-09-20
Berkeley parcels with a commercial building ¶	3,506	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial with both a taxable and a market value ¶	3,357	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold before 2012 / parcels ¶	1,309	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold before 2012 / median gap below market ¶	44.3	44.3%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold before 2012 / share showing any gap ¶	92.2	92.2%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold 2012-2014 / parcels ¶	218	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold 2012-2014 / median gap below market ¶	37.8	37.8%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold 2012-2014 / share showing any gap ¶	89.0	89.0%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold 2015-2017 / parcels ¶	380	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold 2015-2017 / median gap below market ¶	26.5	26.5%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold 2015-2017 / share showing any gap ¶	82.9	82.9%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold 2018-2021 / parcels ¶	656	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold 2018-2021 / median gap below market ¶	15.0	15.0%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold 2018-2021 / share showing any gap ¶	70.1	70.1%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold 2022-2025 / parcels ¶	742	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold 2022-2025 / median gap below market ¶	0.0	0.0%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial / Sold 2022-2025 / share showing any gap ¶	44.7	44.7%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial with no recorded sale date ¶	52	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial, no sale date, median gap ¶	61.0	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class with both an assessed and a market value ¶	26,182	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold before 2012 / parcels ¶	7,814	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold before 2012 / median gap below market ¶	54.7	54.7%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold before 2012 / share showing any gap ¶	86.0	86.0%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold 2012-2014 / parcels ¶	1,505	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold 2012-2014 / median gap below market ¶	49.8	49.8%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold 2012-2014 / share showing any gap ¶	89.7	89.7%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold 2015-2017 / parcels ¶	2,392	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold 2015-2017 / median gap below market ¶	40.2	40.2%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold 2015-2017 / share showing any gap ¶	91.6	91.6%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold 2018-2021 / parcels ¶	4,964	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold 2018-2021 / median gap below market ¶	25.6	25.6%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold 2018-2021 / share showing any gap ¶	80.3	80.3%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold 2022-2025 / parcels ¶	6,256	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold 2022-2025 / median gap below market ¶	0.0	0.0%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class / Sold 2022-2025 / share showing any gap ¶	30.4	30.4%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester 6% class whose implied ratio exceeds 6% ¶	324	1.2%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial parcels last sold 2022-2025 ¶	742	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley 2022-2025 commercial sales in the 25% ATI-exemption band ¶	52	7.0%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley 2022-2025 commercial sales taxed on the full market value ¶	407	54.9%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley rows carrying a TMACode, the nearest field to an ATI ¶	182	0.1%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston County parcels ¶	197,620	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley County parcels ¶	123,050	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester County parcels ¶	74,613	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Tri-county parcels, all three layers ¶	395,283	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston parcels carrying an appraised (market) value ¶	186,794	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston parcels carrying a taxable or assessed value ¶	0	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston distinct tax districts ¶	44	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley distinct tax districts ¶	21	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester distinct default tax districts ¶	15	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Distinct Validity codes on the Berkeley roll ¶	24	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley rows with no Validity code at all ¶	5,672	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial parcels last sold in 2024 or 2025 ¶	375	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley 2024-25 commercial sales coded other than 0 or 0A ¶	193	51.5%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley commercial parcels last sold from 2025 onward ¶	316	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley 2025-onward commercial sales coded other than 0 or 0A ¶	164	51.9%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 0A / rows ¶	57,734	46.9%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 9 / rows ¶	18,938	15.4%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 9A / rows ¶	11,375	9.2%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 0 / rows ¶	8,924	7.3%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 1A / rows ¶	5,914	4.8%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code (blank) / rows ¶	5,672	4.6%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 2 / rows ¶	4,614	3.7%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 7 / rows ¶	3,535	2.9%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 2A / rows ¶	1,677	1.4%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 4 / rows ¶	1,417	1.2%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 1 / rows ¶	1,090	0.9%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 7A / rows ¶	680	0.6%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 3 / rows ¶	492	0.4%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 6A / rows ¶	383	0.3%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 3A / rows ¶	214	0.2%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 6 / rows ¶	132	0.1%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 8A / rows ¶	87	0.1%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 4A / rows ¶	87	0.1%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 8 / rows ¶	24	0.0%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 5A / rows ¶	21	0.0%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 5 / rows ¶	21	0.0%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 9AC / rows ¶	14	0.0%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 8AC / rows ¶	2	0.0%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 0AC / rows ¶	2	0.0%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley Validity code 6AC / rows ¶	1	0.0%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston commercial parcels, our published code list ¶	12,607	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston commercial transfers recorded in 2024 or 2025 ¶	1,324	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston 2024-25 commercial transfers recorded at $100 or less ¶	373	28.2%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston 2024-25 commercial transfers recorded at exactly $0 ¶	163	12.3%	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston distinct CLASS_CODE strings ¶	45	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston distinct numeric class codes ¶	44	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston class code 730 spelled '730 - Golf Course' ¶	51	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston class code 730 spelled '730 - GOLF COURSE' ¶	42	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston parcels with situs city MOUNT PLEASANT ¶	35,838	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston parcels with situs city MT PLEASANT ¶	6,411	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston distinct situs city values ¶	142	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston parcels addressed CHARLESTON ¶	63,820	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Tax districts holding a parcel addressed CHARLESTON ¶	21	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston rows returned by paging the service ¶	197,677	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston duplicate rows among those paged ¶	57	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley rows carrying any Validity code at all ¶	117,378	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Berkeley distinct City values, the owner's mailing city ¶	2,931	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Charleston parcels whose PROP_TYPE is 'DR' ¶	43,981	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Dorchester SALE_PRICE values that are not a number ¶	1	—	Charleston Tri-County, South Carolina	No. 05	2026-09-20
Davidson County parcels ¶	287,112	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Berry Hill parcels ¶	929	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Berry Hill distinct property-city values ¶	1	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Berry Hill parcels with a NASHVILLE property address ¶	929	100.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Berry Hill most common property city ¶	NASHVILLE	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Belle Meade parcels ¶	1,225	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Belle Meade distinct property-city values ¶	1	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Belle Meade parcels with a NASHVILLE property address ¶	1,225	100.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Belle Meade most common property city ¶	NASHVILLE	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Forest Hills parcels ¶	2,137	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Forest Hills distinct property-city values ¶	2	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Forest Hills parcels with a NASHVILLE property address ¶	1,959	91.7%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Forest Hills most common property city ¶	NASHVILLE	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Oak Hill parcels ¶	2,034	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Oak Hill distinct property-city values ¶	2	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Oak Hill parcels with a NASHVILLE property address ¶	1,920	94.4%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Oak Hill most common property city ¶	NASHVILLE	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Goodlettsville parcels ¶	4,045	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Goodlettsville distinct property-city values ¶	2	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Goodlettsville parcels with a NASHVILLE property address ¶	0	0.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Goodlettsville most common property city ¶	GOODLETTSVILLE	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Ridgetop parcels ¶	22	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Ridgetop distinct property-city values ¶	1	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Ridgetop parcels with a NASHVILLE property address ¶	0	0.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Ridgetop most common property city ¶	GOODLETTSVILLE	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels inside a separately incorporated city ¶	10,392	3.6%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels in a separate city but addressed NASHVILLE ¶	6,033	58.1%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Distinct TaxDist values as the column stores them ¶	22	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Distinct TaxDist values once trimmed ¶	15	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels whose TaxDist carries stray whitespace ¶	43,132	15.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
TaxDist USD parcels missed by an exact match ¶	34,046	17.8%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
TaxDist GSD parcels missed by an exact match ¶	8,399	10.8%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
TaxDist GO parcels missed by an exact match ¶	491	12.1%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
TaxDist BH parcels missed by an exact match ¶	146	15.7%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
TaxDist FH parcels missed by an exact match ¶	24	1.1%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
TaxDist OH parcels missed by an exact match ¶	21	1.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
TaxDist BM parcels missed by an exact match ¶	5	0.4%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Distinct land use codes ¶	91	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Distinct land use descriptions ¶	89	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Land use codes that are not numeric ¶	1	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Codes written under more than one description ¶	3	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 010 parcels under a minority spelling ¶	1,182	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 036 parcels under a minority spelling ¶	24	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 077 parcels under a minority spelling ¶	6	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 010 parcels spelled 'VACANT RESIDENTIAL LAND' ¶	21,356	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 010 parcels spelled 'VACANT RESIENTIAL LAND' ¶	1,182	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 036 parcels spelled 'CONDOMINIUM OFC OR OTHER COM CONDO' ¶	727	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 036 parcels spelled 'CONDOMINIUM OFC OR OTHER COM CONDO' ¶	24	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 077 parcels spelled 'TERMINAL/DISTRIBUTION WARHOUSE' ¶	619	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 077 parcels spelled 'TERMINAL/DISTRIBUTION WAREHOUSE' ¶	6	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels described 'RESTURANT/CAFETERIA' ¶	446	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels described 'TERMINAL/DISTRIBUTION WARHOUSE' ¶	619	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels described 'VACANT RESIENTIAL LAND' ¶	1,182	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels carrying a misspelled land use description ¶	2,247	0.8%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Descriptions shared by more than one code ¶	5	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels on an 08x rural land use code ¶	10,824	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
08x parcels reaching the 15-acre greenbelt minimum ¶	1,503	13.9%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels described 'DUPLEX' ¶	7,088	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels described 'MOBILE HOME' ¶	426	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels described 'RESIDENTIAL CONDO' ¶	55,182	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels described 'SINGLE FAMILY' ¶	156,791	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels described 'VACANT RURAL LAND' ¶	3,203	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels assessed at the 25% residential and farm ratio ¶	235,751	82.1%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels assessed at the 40% commercial and industrial ratio ¶	29,676	10.3%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels carrying an appraised value but assessed at zero ¶	18,759	6.5%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels carrying no appraised value ¶	2,260	0.8%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels assessed at neither statutory ratio ¶	666	0.2%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 011 (single family) assessed at the 25% residential ratio ¶	148,423	99.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 011 (single family) assessed at the 40% commercial ratio ¶	1,030	0.7%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 012 (duplex) assessed at the 25% residential ratio ¶	2,045	29.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 012 (duplex) assessed at the 40% commercial ratio ¶	4,799	68.2%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 013 (triplex) assessed at the 25% residential ratio ¶	3	0.9%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 013 (triplex) assessed at the 40% commercial ratio ¶	342	97.2%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 014 (quadplex) assessed at the 25% residential ratio ¶	0	0.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 014 (quadplex) assessed at the 40% commercial ratio ¶	235	97.1%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Duplex parcels with both a property and an owner address ¶	7,041	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Duplexes at 25% residential whose owner address is the property address ¶	1,347	65.9%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Duplexes at 40% commercial whose owner address is the property address ¶	268	5.6%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Land use codes split across both statutory ratios ¶	7	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 011 (SINGLE FAMILY) assessed at 40% ¶	1,030	0.7%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 011 (SINGLE FAMILY) assessed at 25% ¶	148,423	99.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 015 (RESIDENTIAL CONDO) assessed at 40% ¶	6,205	11.2%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 015 (RESIDENTIAL CONDO) assessed at 25% ¶	48,917	88.6%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 010 (VACANT RESIDENTIAL LAND) assessed at 40% ¶	577	2.6%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 010 (VACANT RESIDENTIAL LAND) assessed at 25% ¶	9,283	41.2%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 012 (DUPLEX) assessed at 40% ¶	4,799	68.2%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 012 (DUPLEX) assessed at 25% ¶	2,045	29.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 016 (ZERO LOT LINE) assessed at 40% ¶	804	14.8%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 016 (ZERO LOT LINE) assessed at 25% ¶	4,544	83.8%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 020 (VACANT COMMERCIAL LAND) assessed at 40% ¶	2,103	82.8%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 020 (VACANT COMMERCIAL LAND) assessed at 25% ¶	50	2.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 019 (RESIDENTIAL COMBO/MISC) assessed at 40% ¶	67	15.6%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Code 019 (RESIDENTIAL COMBO/MISC) assessed at 25% ¶	316	73.5%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels carrying both a PropDate and an OwnDate ¶	287,061	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels where the two dates disagree on the year ¶	261,740	91.2%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Earliest PropDate year ¶	1,849	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Earliest OwnDate year ¶	1,854	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels whose PropDate falls before 1900 ¶	32	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels where the field named ValidSale is populated ¶	4	0.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels where ValidSale is empty ¶	287,108	100.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
ValidSale = 'N' ¶	1	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
ValidSale = 'Y' ¶	3	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Distinct sale codes on the roll ¶	28	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels with no sale code at all ¶	14,499	5.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels classified commercial or industrial by the assessor ¶	29,676	10.3%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Commercial parcels carrying no sale price at all ¶	12,478	42.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Commercial parcels carrying a sale price ¶	17,198	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Priced commercial parcels coded Q, the most common code ¶	7,069	41.1%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Commercial parcels last transferred in 2021 or later ¶	12,595	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Commercial parcels transferred since 2021 and coded Q ¶	2,986	23.7%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Sale code Q / parcels ¶	144,427	50.3%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Sale code I / parcels ¶	65,682	22.9%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Sale code U / parcels ¶	20,337	7.1%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Sale code M / parcels ¶	13,904	4.8%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Sale code V / parcels ¶	5,179	1.8%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Sale code C / parcels ¶	4,641	1.6%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Sale code S / parcels ¶	4,420	1.5%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Sale code D / parcels ¶	2,850	1.0%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Sale code E / parcels ¶	2,323	0.8%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Sale code K / parcels ¶	1,370	0.5%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Sale code N / parcels ¶	1,215	0.4%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels whose house number is the placeholder 0 ¶	9,405	3.3%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels with no house number at all ¶	51	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Parcels sharing a property address with another parcel ¶	9,332	3.3%	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20
Distinct property addresses on the roll ¶	279,690	—	Davidson County, Tennessee	No. 06	2026-09-20

Source: statistics.json (CC BY 4.0). Figures are re-presented here, never re-derived; if a number above disagrees with the JSON file, the JSON file governs.