Until you realize the reality writ large: The current tax scheme enables drives supply down and value endlessly up. So much so that most homeowners end up selling for more than the total lifetime cost of ownership. So the old man from 'Up' would be able to sell and recoup a lifetime of housing costs. Personal homeownership is just abstract landlording in that way.
We have a myth in the western world that we own our homes. You can argue it's a natural right, but that won't matter to the government if you don't pay your taxes. So ownership is a social construct, just like copyright; we've decided as a society that it's most beneficial to let people "own" land. But the current system has, by destroying housing supply, increased housing costs by double (in HCOL areas) over what they would be if supply met demand. So renters and first time homeowners are subsidizing homeowners in a huge way. As a result, people are putting off having kids, or not having them at all, and taking a job they hate just to exist. It's abstract, but it's still feudalism; land owners extracting value from land merely from holding the social contract to it.
So no, my empathy does not extend to sympathy for Mr. Carl Fredrickson. I'll save it for the people laboring to pay his fair share.
I do have sympathy, it's a understandable position for someone to be in, but I'm not sure that Up in specific is the best analogy?
Examples include conservation projects and urban farms, but the big one is empty-nesters ageing in place (while the city has grown around them).
If you've seen the start of the movie Up you'll recall that Mr. Carl Fredrickson owns a detached home which now has apartment towers going up on all sides. As a widower his house holds extreme sentimental value to him; he isn't selling. Under an optimal land tax regime, he'd be paying quite a bit of land tax reflecting the increased desirability of his location, and would potentially be forced to sell up as a result.