[scarmig]

You're selling the land underneath your house, not your house. And you wouldn't have to move: you'd pay some use fee to the new owner (though there'd probably be some kind of option to revaluate after a bid to prevent a whole lot of churn).

[willcipriano]

My choice in buying the home was made for twofold reasons firstly to no longer be subject to the whims of a landlord, secondly to lock in my costs of housing against inflation. This would rob me of both those advantages. I don't see how you would get any homeowners to vote for a proposal like that.

[yellowapple]

> firstly to no longer be subject to the whims of a landlord

Unless you have an allodial title (hint: you almost certainly do not), you are always subject to the whims of at least one landlord, specifically the state.

[neilsense]

What a ridiculous response to a genuine concern.

[yellowapple]

Right, it's "ridiculous" to point out that the very premise of that "genuine" concern is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how land ownership works in pretty much every common law jurisdiction (the US included) because... reasons.

[chrismcb]

This sounds like an insane rich get richer scheme. I can either set a high value on my land and pay to much in taxes, or pretty much guarantee that someone would by my land. Why wouldn't they? They can buy the land, immediately place a higher value (they make the money on the resale) then charge a user few to cover the tax plus their income. As a current homeowner about the only thing I can do is place a high value on the land myself. Enough that is someone buys it out makes it easier for me to move. But then I'm paying higher taxes. Of course I have the problem with the new house. Essentially this removes land ownership from the average person. Some might say that isn't a bad thing, but it is when only the rich can afford land.