[roenxi]

Taxes are pretty miserable. A person would be able to afford something. Then taxes happen. Now they can't.

There isn't a solution that is fair, the major activity in the debate over California housing seems to be people turning themselves in knots to find solutions where long time residents enjoy a high-demand city without paying for its upkeep. The goal is for long time residents to reap rewards without doing anything - there is no fair way to do that. It drives inequality too. Rich people tend to own lots of land for long periods of time.

> ...the rest of the city forces you to "enjoy" higher taxes you never demanded [...] or wanted...

I do not hesitate in pointing out this part of your post applies to most taxpayers. I personally disagree with most of what my tax money is spent on, and distrust the people who spend it. That is why it is taxed from me.

We should go with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism - it is fairest over the long term. Moving homes is not so terrible that it has to be prevented at all costs.

[oceanghost]

Is there a correlation though between city expenses and property values for large moves in property value?

Just because property values double doesn't mean the cost of pothole repair doubles?

[roenxi]

Pretty much must be, because the city is spending the money on something. If the city isn't using the money on something essential, they could reduce taxes.

Might be a struggle to get tax reductions past the voting public. But I think a bit of political elbow grease could get it done.

[oceanghost]

So the City should reduce total taxes by increasing property taxes?

That's semantics at best.