I do what I want?

What I want is what I do?

There are decisions whose meaning becomes clear not from the first official explanations, but from how the authorities subsequently handle their consequences. The mass reassessment of real estate in Tashkent is precisely one of those cases. Officials call it a necessary update of the valuation system, a rejection of outdated approaches, and a transition to a value closer to the market rate.

There is a grain of truth in this explanation: the previous methodology was indeed far from the real market, since the determination of cadastral value mainly took into account the year of construction, wall material, and number of floors, while the location was not factored in.

However, the problem is not that the authorities finally decided to find out how much apartments and houses cost. The problem lies in the scale of the result obtained and in the fact that, along with it, citizens are being asked to believe several assertions at once that do not align well with each other.

According to preliminary results, more than 600,000 apartments in Tashkent received a combined value of about 426.17 trillion soums instead of the previous 57.18 trillion. In other words, the state valuation increased by about 7.4 times. For individual houses, in some cases, the increase reaches 15 times. At the same time, the developers of the system themselves emphasize that the new value is close to the market rate and calculated taking into account actual transactions, realtor data, location, and other characteristics.

And here a question arises: if the authorities have indeed determined the value of citizens' property as close to the market as possible, why are they simultaneously so persistently convincing them that this value supposedly should not have a significant impact on taxation?

This is where the most interesting part begins.

Officials state that the results of the mass assessment are not yet a tax base, and the question of their further application in the tax system will be decided separately. Moreover, a reduction in rates is promised so that the introduction of the new assessment does not lead to an increase in the tax burden.

But such an explanation is too easily accepted as a ready-made answer, although in reality it is not. In the current mechanism, cadastral value is already used as the base for property tax on individuals. This is an existing principle of tax legislation. Therefore, officials can say that the new mass assessment itself has not yet become the tax base, but to claim that the value of real estate itself is not connected to taxes is incorrect: the connection is already embedded in the very mechanism of taxation. The difference here is fundamental.

If the government increases the cadastral value of property by 7 times, it raises a metric that is potentially used in calculating tax. To prevent the tax from rising in this case, one can indeed lower the rate or apply a limiting coefficient. But then we are talking not about the absence of a connection between the new assessment and the tax, but about something else: the state is temporarily or partially compensating for the growth of the tax base by changing another element of the calculation. These are completely different things.

We are told: the new value does not mean a tax increase. But at the same time, they remain silent about the fact that the new value creates an opportunity to change the tax base, and the size of the future payment will depend on what rate the authorities set for this base. This is exactly what needs to be explained to society.

Especially since tax parameters are already changing. For 2026, property tax rates for individuals were indexed on average by about 1.3 times compared to the previous year, and for certain categories — significantly higher.

Representatives of the National Center for Mass Valuation of Real Estate themselves list the areas where information on reassessment should be used: mortgages, collateral, insurance, compensation for property seizure, infrastructure planning, developers' work, and other processes. In other words, the authorities are openly saying: we need the most accurate value of citizens' property because it will be applied in many economic relations. But then a simple question arises: why should the tax system be the only area where this new accuracy suddenly ceases to matter? It doesn't work that way.

There is also another aspect of the problem. The authorities announced that the preliminary results are available to owners, and those who disagree can send comments and objections through my.gov.uz. The discussion started on September 5 and is scheduled to last for two months. At first glance, this looks like a model of modern public administration: the government conducted a mass assessment, showed the result, and gave the citizen an opportunity to check it and report an error. But such a design has a serious flaw: it assumes that a citizen is capable of independently detecting an error in the operation of a state system. And this is far from the case.

Let's imagine that a person saw in their personal account the value of their apartment, which turned out to be 8 times higher than before. What next? They need to understand where this figure came from. To do this, at the very least, they need to know the calculation methodology. Then it is necessary to find out what parameters were applied specifically to their property. After that — compare the result with comparable real estate. Then formulate an objection and, obviously, present grounds that allow the assessment to be considered erroneous. That is, the citizen is actually being asked to simultaneously be an owner, an appraiser, and an expert on state methodology.

But if the authorities really consider the result objective, why don't they provide the individual with a detailed breakdown of how the assessed value was formed along with the value itself? That would be true transparency.

And here another circumstance is particularly telling. In one day, according to representatives of the National Center for Mass Valuation of Real Estate, 287 calls were received, with about 80% concerning specifically the tax issue. Against the background of more than 600,000 reassessed apartments, this is a very small number. But to draw a conclusion from this about the population's consent is even less correct than considering the absence of inquiries as proof of the absence of complaints.

A person may not know about the procedure. They may not use electronic government services. They may not understand how to contest the result. They may not have time. But there is also another reason that official structures usually prefer not to talk about: a citizen may simply not consider such a procedure effective. Therefore, 287 calls should be viewed not as an indicator of concern, but as a reason to ask another question: how many citizens are actually capable of using the right granted to them, and how many will simply not do so?

The answer to this requires not call statistics, but a study of the actual accessibility of the procedure. For now, a kind of administrative substitution is taking place. The government says: everyone is given the opportunity to object. Consequently, the process is open. But the existence of an opportunity does not yet mean its practical accessibility.

A strange situation emerges: the authorities claim that the new value is more objective than the previous one, but the citizen is asked to take this objectivity almost on faith. And if you don't agree — prove otherwise. This resembles not a public discussion, but a presumption of the state's correctness. Especially considering the lack of a mechanism allowing the new value to be contested.

There is also another question that remains in the shadows of official explanations for now: how correct is it at all to call the new figure "market value" if it is calculated using a mass method?

The market price of a specific apartment is determined not only by the district and area. It is influenced by the condition of the renovation, the view from the window, the floor, the condition of the entrance, the presence of an elevator, the layout, the condition of utilities, the urgency of the sale, the legal circumstances of the transaction, and many other factors. In a real sale of two outwardly similar apartments, the price can differ significantly.

Mass valuation inevitably relies on models and averaging. This is normal for a statistical tool, but that is precisely why it is especially important not to turn the model's result into an indisputable truth. If the government uses mass valuation as a management tool, it must recognize the probability of error for a specific property. Which means the mechanism for correcting an error must be real, not decorative.

Officials themselves say that previously, the value of real estate differed depending on the direction of its use — for mortgages, collateral, demolition, and other operations. Now it is proposed to create a single database. But a single database requires particularly high transparency, because an error in it can automatically spread to several areas at once.

And here a completely different argument against the current presentation of the reform appears. The government asks citizens to discuss the figure, but almost does not discuss the architecture of the system itself: who will control the methodology, how often it will be reviewed, who is responsible for errors, how administrative overvaluation is prevented, and how a citizen can obtain an independent review. These are the questions that are far more important than a call to simply log onto a portal.

Telling a citizen "don't worry, taxes won't go up" is not enough. Much more needs to be said: what rate will be applied to the new value, for what period is it fixed, what restrictions are introduced, how will the tax be calculated after the next reassessment, and can the authorities change these parameters unilaterally.

Without answers to these questions, the assurance remains a political promise. And political promises have a tendency to change along with circumstances.

Society needs not assurances from specific officials, but rules that will operate regardless of who heads this or that department tomorrow. If a citizen has the right to object, they should be given a real tool, not just an electronic window for sending a complaint. Then most of the current questions will disappear. But so far, the opposite is happening.

Public discussion is not when a citizen is allowed to object. It is when a citizen has real grounds to expect that their objection is capable of changing a decision. Otherwise, the procedure turns into a non-binding ritual with all the ensuing consequences. What I want is what I do?