It may sound interesting and promising but is most likely the most unjust way of taxing as it will force people are retired or about to retire out of their homes (that they are not paid for using funds from the basic income).
While the consequences of non-payment would also be forced sale, it is possible for residents to petition and sue the to assessor's office in order to reassess the value and obtain deferments, and the owners are still compenseated for the value of any real property located on the site. This is more just than an income tax, as failure to pay could never result in imprisonment.
Additionally, it would lead to far lower cost of housing, mortgages, and rent. This means less savings and income would have to be allocated toward acquiring the house in the first place. It would also be more just to those who are not wealthy enough to buy a house outright, and must instead rent or obtain a mortgage.
When spending on public services increases the land values and attractiveness of the location for which these services apply, and is financed via taxes on labor rather than taxes on land, this subsidizes land holders and banks invested in mortgages by allowing them to charge higher rent for housing.
(I'm afraid this confusion makes your comments about retirement and forced property sales make very little sense... unless I'm missing something?)
Not for existing homeowners admittedly, but certainly for those in the future.
(Also: Estate tax as a way to fund basic income?)