> people get kicked out of their homes once the land value increases too much

This is already possible with property taxes.

FTA the city claims that 97% of homeowners will see a reduction in taxes. Typically, LVT is highest in areas more central to the city (think downtown) and lowers as you move outwards.

This means that, for example, a multitenant strip mall neighboring an Arby’s on a plot of the same size will pay similar amounts of tax. With property tax, the strip mall would be paying significantly more in taxes even though it is a more productive use of land because the development has more value to its owner.

I have the exact same belief about property taxes. I believe they are perverse at the core. If you own something you should not then have to also pay "rent" to avoid having it seized and auctioned off (at a discount, no less) to those who are already more fortunate than you.

Right. If this is aimed squarely at blighted and/or unused lots I fully and completely support it. If this applies to retired people living in family homes it can fuck off.

The history of property tax involves quite a bit of taxing "intangible property" such as corporate stock. It has obviously evolved dramatically from its original purpose.

Similarly, the income tax in the US was started to pay for the Civil War. It wasn't until the early 1900s that income (both corporate and individual) got federally instituted.

In essence, the tax history of the US reads "At first there were only excise/consumption taxes, and then the government granted itself powers it never gave back. And now here we are."

As such, my expectation is that the notoriously-super-high-integrity government of Detroit won't do anything that isn't in the best interest of the people. Surely.