Your Property Tax Algorithm Was Fair on Day One — Then the Market Moved

A diff-in-diff study of Cook County's assessment reform shows algorithms degrade between updates as markets shift, crediting or blaming models for what appreciation did.

Imagine you calibrate a bathroom scale perfectly on January 1st. It reads your weight dead-on. But the floor underneath it warps a little each month — by December, the scale still reads 170 lbs, but you actually weigh 165. The scale didn't break; the thing it was bolted to moved. That's the core mechanism here: an algorithmic assessment stays fixed while the housing market drifts beneath it, and the fairness you measured at deployment slowly becomes fiction. The committed claim: single-deployment evaluations of algorithmic fairness are misleading because market movement between updates can erode, reverse, or artificially create the appearance of bias. This is demonstrated through Cook County, Illinois, where a gradient-boosted model replaced township regressions and manual adjustments on a triennial reassessment cycle — Chicago in 2021, northern suburbs in 2022, southern suburbs in 2023. The Chicago results are the headline win. The reform halved the relative over-assessment of cheaper homes and weakened the link between assessment-to-price ratio and neighborhood racial composition among equally priced homes. That's a real improvement in both regressivity and racial fairness. But the suburbs tell a different story: the North's legacy values were already accurate (no distortion to fix), and the South's cheap neighborhoods had appreciated faster under frozen values, which partially self-corrected the old bias before the algorithm even arrived. Then appreciation stalled in the reassessment year, leaving new values too high where prices had recently gained. The architecture is difference-in-differences on the assessment-to-price ratio, varying with sale price and neighborhood minority share. This isn't a machine-learning methods paper — the gradient-boosted model is the intervention being studied, not the contribution. The contribution is the empirical framework for measuring how fairness drifts between assessment cycles. The triennial staggering of Cook County's townships provides natural variation in how long algorithmic values have been exposed to market movement. Integrity-wise, the design is clean but limited. The diff-in-diff leverages real assessment and sales data from Cook County, and the triennial cycle provides genuine temporal variation. But this is a single-county study with no pre-registration, and the natural experiment structure means we're observing whatever the market happened to do in those specific years. The southern suburbs' appreciation-then-stall pattern is a found natural experiment, not a controlled one. The practical upshot is uncomfortable for anyone deploying algorithmic fairness interventions on periodic update cycles. The paper shows that the benefit of a better model is largest at deployment and decays as market conditions evolve. If cheaper neighborhoods appreciate faster between updates (a common pattern in recovery markets), the algorithm's frozen values become relatively more accurate for expensive homes and less accurate for cheap ones — the exact regressivity pattern the reform was meant to fix. The fix works, but it has a half-life. What's missing is the obvious follow-up: how short does the update cycle need to be to keep fairness drift within acceptable bounds? The paper documents drift over a three-year triennial cycle but doesn't model what happens at annual, semi-annual, or continuous-update frequencies. That's the engineering question practitioners need answered, and it's conspicuously absent — likely because the triennial structure of Cook County is the only natural experiment available, and simulating shorter cycles would require stronger modeling assumptions the authors weren't willing to make.