The NIMBYs would be less motivated if rising land values were captured by taxes rather than winners of the homeowner lottery (and who likes SF NIMBYs?)
A lot of people sitting on inefficiently used land would also be driven to sell (and their bungalow could be demolished and replaced with apartments, increasing supply).
Also more tax income.
One problem with this is that a lot of land owners have been in the city for decades and their property tax rates are protected under Prop 13 [0]. Basically their tax rates get adjusted for inflation but aren't reassessed unless ownership changes or there's significant construction. Raising tax rates won't touch these people.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1978_California_Proposition_13
Support is rising quickly.
> Prop 13 already has a few nuances for specific counties.
It does not.
No, they don't. The tax basis value is adjusted annually to the lesser of the actual value or 2% greater than the previous year’s tax basis value in the absence of an event allowing unrestricted full-market assessment (most sales, for instance.)
The 1% maximum increase does not (except when inflation happens to be unusually low) amount to adjusting for inflation, and it's not done without reassessment (value drops—rare in the Bay but still can happen—are immediately reflected, but increases are capped.)
> Raising tax rates won't touch these people.
Plus, the same thing that creates the limit on basis increases also puts a hard cap on rates.