The rapid run-up of home values in the US has led other states to follow, but they generally have higher caps on increases and limit the treatment to your primary residence.
Both should probably be pegged to the inflation rate nationally each year, which would probably bring them up a few ticks, but otherwise seems reasonable to me. For owner occupied of course, -not- landlords.
Yes I agree...but not the CPI, it should be tied specifically to housing prices. You could even have the state hire appraises to figure out the value of each specific property and peg the rate of increase to that for each property owner.
If your little city blows up, and your property value in the market is now 3x what it was, why should you be punished and even forced out if you can't afford the new taxes? New buyers do the same math, and decide they can afford it.. Yes they're paying more, but voluntarily on a likely overpriced asset.
I'm not saying the original owners should just pay less and that's fair, screw the new buyers. I just think the increase should be capped realistically.
Of course any program if you look only at the beneficiaries is going to look good. We have embraced this attitude that broadly favors the sustaining the already established in their current condition in perpetuity, regardless of the cost to anyone else.
In time it'll work itself out, assuming they stay long enough, as it still allows increases in a falling or stagnant market.