Agreed on all points. I put in #1 because a substantial number of HN readers are highly invested in the US residential property market, and in past conversations with people who were similarly invested, not mentioning that exemption turned into a dismissive non-starter conversation. My concession to even get a conversation started at all with those folks. Upton Sinclair comes to mind: It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
#6 is an attempt to reconcile the following challenge. Well past the point when developers could foot the bill for infrastructure expansion, we continue levying taxpayers to pay for it all while property developers reaped the majority cash benefits the soonest from the expansion. This heavily subsidizes inner core residents who get there earliest, and regressively penalizes later generations and residents settling the outer rims with increased infrastructure costs that increase as the square of the distance from the core, while outer rim density-based tax revenue functions more linearly. We're saddled with the legacy, but how do we allocate the true infrastructure expansion costs of growing outwards instead up/downwards, not to speak of remedying past distortions that have magnified effects today? I'm fine with not going with my #6 as I'm highly dissatisfied with it as well, but would welcome other cost allocation mechanism ideas, any to offer?
#9 Remove all subsidies, deductions, and tax credits. Including those involving land banking. [1]
#10 All commercial property tax subsidies/waivers/rebates/etc. must pass by a super-majority vote of the ones who pick up the tab for the gap.
[1] http://usa.streetsblog.org/2013/01/09/450-billion-in-federal...