Or maybe property taxes should be based on the services rendered. If they increased from $1,000/year to $20,000/year and you subtract away the inflation here is the city government delivering more value or less?

In my city and others our city council delivers large grants to non-profits and other entities under various auspices. “Defending gay rights” is one, or maybe helping the homeless or something. Of course I support both causes in general, but if the city gives a million dollars away maybe we just have to have some people kicked out of their homes to pay for these programs?

You can say well we will just raise taxes on the wealthy. Sure yea, whatever but that isn’t a viable long term strategy for places outside of California or New York which have an ability to capture wealth better due to intrisinic location value. There are only so many “rich” people. Could I afford another $10,000 in city taxes? Yea. I won’t be able to go out to eat or shop at local business as much though. So then what happens? Do those businesses go under? Raise prices? What about their property tax? Maybe instead I sell and take a loss on the house and the market value goes down so now that home pays less in taxes (depending on how this stuff is measured in a given jurisdiction).

> Maybe a city failing to stretch services will send new residents seeking other cities, which would be healthier anyway.

Yea. Tell Google and Meta and whoever to stop putting more jobs in the “cool” cities and come to Ohio where I live instead of these data centers.

This stuff is rather complicated, unfortunately. Even the case of a city let’s say “building affordable housing” is arguably a benefit to the local homeowners, but if you do that yea sorry Granny McPension has to pay for it too - she has a house, she’s wealthy!

> Pay to buy these homeowners out of their single family and convert the land to multifamily.

But that's what the market is already doing? In your example from above, you can take a $400,000 windfall and move somewhere else, or take out a mortgage against that $400,000 of new equity to pay your taxes and still come out waaaaay ahead. I don't understand your characterization of a second mortgage as "taking the house away" at all.

> Houses are not the same thing as cash or other fungible assets.

> Especially not when you're getting older

Houses are wealth. And the wealth in them can be accessed while retaining use of the house. Especially when you are getting older.

Why are we replaying the dishonest “think of the retirees” now? It was bullshit in California in 1978 to sell Prop 13, and its even bigger (and more transparent) bullshit now when, especially when it is used to sell the same basic idea.

Reverse mortgage.

> How is this fair at any level?

How is it fair that working people have to pay 10x for housing than she did when she was young? How is it fair that the money goes to her inheritance while she made her working neighbors pay her share of taxes?

Why should this person take up a family home in a desirable area? It is inefficient. The pressure she is feeling to leave is the system working as intended.

[dead]

Either housing is an economic asset subject to market forces, or it's not.

If it's not, then I would also like to live in a nice neighborhood for $100k and zero property tax, please.

On the other hand, if it is, then this person has a substantial economic asset that she could reverse mortgage, rent out, or sell.