#6 is an attempt to reconcile the following challenge. Well past the point when developers could foot the bill for infrastructure expansion, we continue levying taxpayers to pay for it all while property developers reaped the majority cash benefits the soonest from the expansion. This heavily subsidizes inner core residents who get there earliest, and regressively penalizes later generations and residents settling the outer rims with increased infrastructure costs that increase as the square of the distance from the core, while outer rim density-based tax revenue functions more linearly. We're saddled with the legacy, but how do we allocate the true infrastructure expansion costs of growing outwards instead up/downwards, not to speak of remedying past distortions that have magnified effects today? I'm fine with not going with my #6 as I'm highly dissatisfied with it as well, but would welcome other cost allocation mechanism ideas, any to offer?
#9 Remove all subsidies, deductions, and tax credits. Including those involving land banking. [1]
#10 All commercial property tax subsidies/waivers/rebates/etc. must pass by a super-majority vote of the ones who pick up the tab for the gap.
[1] http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/09/450-billion-in-federal...
Number 1 should avoid use of the proposed exception for the same reason that mortgage interest shouldn't be deductible: it's a subsidy that distorts the market and is unfair to the good people who are still renting (who are, broadly speaking, probably not as well off in general, so it's a regressive subsidy where we pay the rich).
You should add a #8 to remove all government subsidies of flood insurance and similar vehicles, especially along rivers and coasts, as they're basically paying people money to build homes (often luxury or vacation homes) in dangerous places.