[jonr]

While Skip is right that it is spending that increases the total tax raised (assuming non-tax revenues are constant), increasing market values for one segment of property (lakefront, nice views, etc.) does have the effect at changing the distribution of taxes. If nice view properties double in value while regular residential properties go up 10%, then the view properties share of town taxes will indeed go up.

The other thing folks often seem to miss is that there are ways other than a sale to monetize a real increase in property values. If want you to stay in your now more valuable property despite a fixed income, then you can do an equity loan or a reverse mortgage. Since property taxes are a small percentage (say 1.2% to 2% of the assessment), you don't need to tap much equity to pay the property bills. You should easily be able to pay 30 to 50 years of that % increase with the property's value increase). So if my property increases $100k in value, I would be very happy to pay another $1500 or so in taxes every year. Even if I didn't have the income, I could tap some of my $100k in value to do so for a very long time. ($100k / $1500 = 66 years, reduce that for time value of money, fees etc.)

I think the real problems are that folks don't believe the assessments represent the real value of their property and that spending increases often increases such that everyone's tax bill increases even were property values to be stagnant.