The problem with trying to use taxes to punish what's seen as bad behavior is that it can punish people who aren't behaving badly. If the owners of the derelict property can currently afford their property taxes, they can probably still afford it after it's raised. But others who actively use their property and perhaps aren't as rich could face losing what's theirs.
If you want to talk about using the law to prevent situations like this, then it needs to be a law unto itself rather than something incorporated into the tax code.
>The problem with trying to use taxes to punish what's seen as bad behavior is that it can punish people who aren't behaving badly.
Agreed. I know that the businesses still surviving in my Downtown are doing just that. Surviving.
If property taxes increased on all retail buildings in the downtown, rents would surely increase as a result, and the businesses that can make a buck currently would probably have to close up shop and move farther out into the city.
Perhaps raising retail property taxes on buildings that sat empty might be a better solution? But then I suspect that all of those empty buildings would become filled with "fake" retail businesses... like a shoe shop that only opens up for 1 day a month or something.
I'm not especially well-informed on these matters, but from the outside looking in, raising property taxes looks to me less like punishment or force, both of which are kind of indulgent as terms, than like a community of people using democratically-created and democratically-approved non-violent means to align resources and incentives. Being a property owner doesn't exempt someone from democracy.
If you want to talk about using the law to prevent situations like this, then it needs to be a law unto itself rather than something incorporated into the tax code.