That is a horrible idea. California tried it ("Prop 13") and it made the NIMBY/takers-vs.-makers problem even worse.
Property tax increases are minor compared to asset appreciation. If your house goes up from $300k to $500k and your property tax rate is a typical 1.25% per year, then you made $200k for doing absolutely nothing, but you're paying $2500 per year for it. If you don't like it, sell your house and make a clean $200k (ok, slightly less due to transaction costs) and downsize or move.
What I would support is a law that allows retirees of low income to keep a locked-in property value, on the provision that the house must be offered for sale at that price upon the owner's death (and can't be handed down, though next of kin may bid on it). If there's competitive bidding, the government takes the excess. This would prevent low-income old people from being pushed out by property taxes; everyone else can either move or pay the higher taxes.
Property tax increases are minor compared to asset appreciation. If your house goes up from $300k to $500k and your property tax rate is a typical 1.25% per year, then you made $200k for doing absolutely nothing, but you're paying $2500 per year for it. If you don't like it, sell your house and make a clean $200k (ok, slightly less due to transaction costs) and downsize or move.
What I would support is a law that allows retirees of low income to keep a locked-in property value, on the provision that the house must be offered for sale at that price upon the owner's death (and can't be handed down, though next of kin may bid on it). If there's competitive bidding, the government takes the excess. This would prevent low-income old people from being pushed out by property taxes; everyone else can either move or pay the higher taxes.