Property taxes are an eternal evil home owners across this country must contend with.
(Property taxes are probably the only taxes which are constitutional in this country, having been imposed as the result of a ballot issue voted on by the people, not a small, select, group of legislators.)
Laying the issue of constitutionality aside, the system by which an individual property owners share of the tax burden is apportioned appears equitable while in reality has been constructed in such a manner as to penalize a property owner for making improvements/repairs to his home and lot while those who allow the decline of their holdings condition are rewarded for their non-action by the lowering of their tax burden. A paradox in spades.
On the surface, the system seems fair. Looking more closely reveals the inequitable nature of our property tax system.
In some countries, where property taxes exist, the system has been modified to make the maintenance and upgrade of property more attractive to the citizens there. Instead of finding their taxes rising by quantum leaps each time a property owner improves and/or enhances the monitory and/or aesthetic value of his/her property the taxes levied decrease rather than increase.
Recently, many communities have instituted a nuisance abatement campaign. One of the common features is the enactment of statutes which define the minimum standards of maintenance required; then, define recourse and penalties for failure to meet those standards of property maintenance.
Take, for example, the requirement that vegetation be controlled. Grass must be mowed. Blackberry and other similar infestations must be checked. If they are not controlled by the owner, the governing body causes such maintenance to be performed, and the property owner is required to pay any and all expenses incurred thereby.
The theme could be taken a step further. The basic tax rate could be based on the area of an owners holdings; on the amount of real property which is owned, the buildings on that property are not initially considered when fixing that base tax amount, only the amount of land owned.
The current structure of periodic inspections and appraisal would remain while the purpose would change: Rather than looking for improvements which increase the value of the property they stand upon, the inspections would be aimed at detecting degradation to those above ground improvements by two criteria.
The soundness of the structures and the overall aesthetic appearance of the above ground structures as well as the landscape of the real property as compared to those properties adjacent to the property under inspection. If the conditions are found to be such that they tend to reduce the livability, present a hazard, or present an appearance which tends to degrade the surrounding properties then higher rates are imposed raising the tax liability charged that property's owner.
Inversely, if the conditions are not degrading to the surrounding properties due to poor landscape maintenance, the structures are well maintained, sound, free of hazards and appropriately livable then the tax rates must remain at the minimum amount possible based on the area of land owned.
No taxes may be levied based on the existence of sound structures built upon the land.