There are multiple ways to reduce the impact of the problem. All of them would reduce property values and some might displace existing homeowners. All redistribution is painful and surely people will lose out, the same way that savers lose purchasing power to inflation. Nevertheless, I think it is a necessary rebalance of a system that has been favoring owning over renting for too long.
(1) Tax on imputed rent when owning (imputed rent should not be pre-tax)
(2) Land Value Tax
(3) Remove the mortgage interest deduction
A caveat here is that many of these people vote against denser zoning in their neighborhood. So, in a way, the appreciation of their primary home is due to factors that they do control.
on balance, the housing price appreciation, and therefore tax burden, on "these people" is functionally entirely due to external macroeconomic factors, which you can clearly see on the Zillow Housing price index by typing in "New Hampshire" or any relevant zip code: https://www.zillow.com/home-values/
The average NH home increased $7k-$10k in value per year linearly for the last 10 years!
Then it increased $25k Jan '20 -> Jan '21.
Then it increased *$53k* Jan '21 -> Jan '22.
10 years worth of price appreciation, and therefore tax appreciation, occurred in a 2 year window.
I understand many people have a pet housing policy issue they care about, but trying to attribute this step-function change in tax burden to "New Hampshire zoning laws" and "these people" as opposed to the massive increase in demand caused by Covid urban flight/WFH & relaxed monetary policy is completely unreasonable.
>you can always choose to live in a cheaper home
Here also - you're oversimplifying. Yes, you can always choose to engage in all manner of frustrating, saddening, and burdensome life changes. But it's unfair to imply it is easy. You may cite the burdens of others as justification for forcing such a change, but it's a complicated, emotional, difficult, subjective argument that you do no justice by abbreviating into hostile quips. You sound like you're sure this group of people you're imagining is the enemy, and not simply equal human beings, some of whom may have voted in a selfish way on some policy that arguably increased the strain of the situation. It's simply not enough to justify your tone. It's unrealistic to attack every individual who does not always act in perfect unselfish harmony with the greater society, especially when such balance is impossible to objectively define. I.e. it is reasonable to expect individuals to make various concessions for society, but it is not reasonable to expect people not to fight as hard as they can to keep their home (even though it may ultimately be that they must lose it).