The state has ruled time and again; It has no duty to protect you and your property.

Warren v. District of Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Castle Rock v. Gonzales http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

Davidson v. City of Westminster , 32 Cal.3d 197 http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/davidson-v-city-westminst...

Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) , 46 Cal.App.3d 6 http://www.lawlink.com/research/caselevel3/51629

Linda Riss v. City of New York http://www2.newpaltz.edu/%7Ezuckerpr/cases/riss.htm

DeShaney v. Winnebago County http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

Susman v. City of Los Angeles269 Cal. App. 2d 803 http://law.justia.com/cases/california/calapp2d/269/803.html

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) http://www.endtimesreport.com/NO_AFFIRMATIVE_DUTY.htm

…and many more! https://archive.is/MbIeH

The days of merely protecting one's property are long over. At least in the US real estate taxes pay for many services unrelated to safety of the property. For example, closing a real estate tax funded senior center is unlikely to result in an increase in crime. Maybe the seniors themselves would be more vulnerable without a senior center, but I fail to see a general crime spree resulting. If anything the seniors would be watching other people's property and call the cops at any sign of potentially suspicious activity.

1. You're assuming they're not paying other types of taxes.

2. That's what states are for.