Let's just take your first claim (I don't have all day). Hopefully that's enough to indicate that nothing that you're talking about is the obvious or natural result of basic economic logic, as you seem to think it is.

Point 1: Increase the local tax burden

Your response: "I don't think it's particularly contentious to say that a low-income person paying less in property tax means that a higher income person must pay more in tax to offer the same level of services".

This depends on the assumption that there is a zero-sum competition between rich and poor people. Every X number of poor people in a city, represents a subtraction of an equivalent number of rich people. Because rich people are presumably in a higher tax bracket, they pay more per person that do poor people. But there's no reason to think that there is a zero-sum competition between rich and poor people. That depends on complex empirical questions like the division of labour in the city, the availability of land and housing, if low-skill labour will attract businesses, and so on. And the fact that a poor person might not pay as much in taxes as a rich person does not make them a tax "burden" in any sensible use of that term - they may be net contributors.