You could make that argument about any property (e.g. art). I guess your definition of "consumption" is "having something someone else doesn't"? But that isn't what most people mean, I think.
Edit: I think a tax on imputed rent could maybe be considered a consumption tax, and it would indeed make sense for it to be higher or lower depending on the location of the property. But a tax on the value of the whole property is not, because it also captures the value of the property as an asset. So that's why I think your argument is too broad.
Yes, there's a consumption component and a non-consumption component. Of course when either component goes up the total goes up. But the tax is on the total value and therefore it's not a consumption tax.
Yes, I understand this point but the ratio between rents and property values varies wildly. So yes you can compute an average ratio and say it is "equivalent" to a tax on imputed rent if you adjust by that ratio, just as you could average out the number of bathrooms in each house and say it is "equivalent" to a bathroom tax. But it's not a very compelling argument!
The cost of police, fire fighters, schools, roads, etc. don’t go up with the value of the home. There is no reason that you couldn’t charge a flat rate to every property owner - including businesses.
The cost of all of these things do increase with the value of the home, because the labor required to do it gets more expensive. The individual house price doesn't contribute to this but overall housing costs do.
SF has had an explosion in property values and thus struggles to find teachers, firefighters and police officers at the salaries it's willing to pay.
How so, taxes are meant to fund the government and services they provide. Everyone who lives in a jurisdiction either consumes those government resources or we as a society have decided that it was in the common good to provide those services (ie education).
Edit: I think a tax on imputed rent could maybe be considered a consumption tax, and it would indeed make sense for it to be higher or lower depending on the location of the property. But a tax on the value of the whole property is not, because it also captures the value of the property as an asset. So that's why I think your argument is too broad.