We charge property taxes regardless of whether the property is occupied, correct? Are the people leaving their property vacant being screwed by the property tax status quo? They aren't using any city services when the property is vacant, are they? Extending your reasoning, why shouldn't we charge them LESS tax while the property is vacant? I don't think anyone wants that, but if you are so certain taxing more is wrong then why not tax less? What evidence do you have that taxing the exact same amount for occupied and unoccupied property is optimal?
As a different way of looking at - why not set the baseline tax for vacant property, give an exemption for occupied property, and a further exemption for owner-occupied property. It is really just adding a 3rd tier to our 2-tier system because we already have the owner-occupied exemption. Are landlords getting "screwed" by the current owner-occupied exemption? I don't think anyone sees it that way. Owner-occupiers are getting a break precisely to ENCOURAGE owner-occupancy.
Good tax policy is designed to encourage desirable behavior and discourage undesirable behavior. We are talking about nudges in one direction or another, not the iron fist of the government crushing everything in sight. Discouraging some absentee investor from choosing Boston to park his money means that someone who is going to actually live in the unit and contribute to our community is going to buy the property instead (for a few dollars less, obviously). Remember, we have an ABSURD excess of buyers and rapid appreciation clearly fueled by Boston's fundamentals, not really fueled by speculation. That kind of tax policy nudge isn't going to override all the fundamental reasons people buy property in Boston and it certainly isn't going to collapse our property tax base. On the contrary, it could just lend some badly needed stability by tempering any influence that speculators do have.
