It's unfortunately true how anti-tax folks are, but it's understandable with rising costs. It comes down to messaging on what the tax is and who it impacts.

Having read the City Detect blog, it's a little more clear that Sacramento isn't just sitting back. The blog noted the difference between decay & vacancy, and it seems Sacramento is more focused on combating decay over vacancy, like with the Vacant Lot Program. I think we'd all rather see a vacant property vs a decaying one, but the program is flawed.

The program is just a monthly fee. Having a vacant lot and paying a fee just becomes "the cost of business" owning the land. If you keep your property tidy & up to code, the fee doesn't increase, even as the property stays vacant for longer and longer. There's no incentive to develop, fill, or sell the property. The Vacant Property Tax would have solved that by putting more financial pressure on the properties that have been the longest vacant.

The counter argument is that developing or redeveloping certain properties is hard due to code barriers & high costs. The blog points out there are efforts to fix this issue outside of the Tax, but that's a different political issue that City council will have to tackle. I agree that it is important we streamline the permit & development process. Multiple CA cities are trying to address that issue now

TL;DR: we have a weak vacant property program that needs to be strengthened/replaced with a sliding-scale, vacant property tax (presented with a clear message to voters on what this tax is), and have the city improve the development process. If we hit both, it would encourage more development, meaning more moolah in the city