Remember that SF's rent stabilization ordinance was the renter's response to Prop 13, enacted one year later. It shouldn't be used as an excuse to preserve a bad law.

This is going to be difficult to unwind fairly but it is only going to get worse if we don't.

What about a long time family-owned pizza place that owns their space. Does it seem right to raise their property taxes?

Poor little small businesses will always get crushed and it's just a matter of who by. I often see this kind of what-about argument trotted out against regulation (if we ban polluting cars, what about the poor folks who can't afford to get their old car serviced?). But if we're so worried about the pizza joint, are we going to protect them if a chain restaurant offers cheaper pizza? What if the neighborhood changes and now people don't like pizza as much? I think the answers to all these questions are the same.

Not if the society makes an effort to keep the pizza place.

Why should they make an effort to keep an overpriced pizza place when people prefer Mexican food now?

You’d have to ask them.

Society already makes an effort by using their money to vote on whether they like that particular pizza place.

Yes that’s exactly the practice that I am pointing out you can replace.

There's probably a stronger argument for "it's just business" than forcing grandma to move out of the house she grew up in because she can no longer afford the property taxes. But, yes for better or worse, it's certainly an aspect of gentrification when the long time family-owned pizza place gets forced out to be replaced by a trendy bar, Starbucks, or a bank branch.

Yes?

Definitely yes.

Property taxes should be proportional to the value of the property. We shouldn't give special breaks to one group or another just because we like them more.

Seems alright to me.