> We're fine with this in many cases. Oil discovered on your land, and you hold the mineral rights? Yes, you get a big chunk of the profit. We're fine with tha

> We're fine with this in many cases. Oil discovered on your land, and you hold the mineral rights? Yes, you get a big chunk of the profit. We're fine with that, I think, because assigning the rights to the landowner (and not taxing away essentially all of the value of those rights) helps ensure that the well gets developed. As a city grows in population because of the economic opportunities it presents, no corresponding incentive is necessary. (At least in the case of Silicon Valley, people are moving here despite a massive disincentive in the form of property values.) > If I understand the LVT, applied to this scenario, instead the residents are forced out because they cannot pay the LVT. Well, again, my proposal for modifying Prop. 13 could also apply to the LVT: to limit the payments due while someone is living in the house, and allow the balance of the tax owed to be collected when it is sold. That's a modification to the LVT as it is usually considered, but would allow us to make it easier for homeowners to ride out periods of rapid price appreciation. (The poor dears. [0]) I think part of the point of taxing only land value, as the LVT does, rather than taxing improvements as well, is to encourage density. It's true that the modification I propose works somewhat against that; but I'm also inclined to agree with those here saying that a complete repeal of Prop. 13 is not in the cards. [0] I couldn't resist this crack once I wrote the previous sentence. I think it's often forgotten by Prop. 13 proponents that, prior to Prop. 13, the people with big property tax increases also had big paper gains that could, in principle, cover those taxes. What Prop. 13 really is is a massive wealth transfer from newcomers to people already here. That's understandably popular with existing residents.