> Why not base the the revenue on income taxes instead
Yup, California does that. That's why CA has a reputation as a high-tax state. Although total tax burden isn't that different from places like Austin, TX though (at least that's how the numbers come out when my friend or I have seriously looked into moving there).
> I don't see what the right fix is for that.
Ha. People have been shouting it from the rooftops. Build more houses! More specifically, just allow people to build more houses. Stop preventing people from building more houses.
Frankly, that's really the only solution. If you have n households in a country, you need approximately n homes to put them in. Be careful where you share this fact though, or you'll be labeled as part of the "growth at all costs" crowd.
> then why not take the policy to restrict the offices that draw them there in the first place?
Because the reality of the situation is that local governments need tax dollars to run services that taxpayers expect (roads, sewers, schools). There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. But voters hate paying higher income taxes. You've also capped property taxes on existing development. So the way local mayors and city councils fill the gap is by allowing development that requires relatively less city services: retail and commercial space.
Of course, now people need to commute to those retail and commercial developments, (because you have limited the amount of housing) so you just created a traffic problem (but, hey, term limits are a great and your successor can deal with it!).
> Spreading it out instead of concentrating it would provide relief.
Lol. Sure, but that's what this whole thread is about! People complaining when other people spread out to get relief, and how property taxes are going up and we need to Do Something to stop it god damn it!
And the cycle begins again...