Not quite.
They have to pay up while they own the land.
They can develop it in ways that may generate revenue sufficient to cover the tax (e.g. a landlord-developer)
They can develop it in ways that won't generate revenue, but that satisfies their own goals, and pay the tax from some other source (e.g. a homeowner)
They can sell it to drop the tax liability.
The carry cost has gone up, forcing action!
The thing missing from the above scenarios is:
Owner can't afford the tax, can't find renters, can't find a buyer, so just walks away. This is why so many properties are vacant now. The owners just walked away.
> This is why so many properties are vacant now.
In Detroit...?
People don't walk away because they can't afford taxes. It's because any dollar spent is negative NPV!
It means that you only pay for the structures, or the cost to remove a blighted structure, etc. It makes real estate more liquid, and allows more people to try their hand at development without having a massive land bank worth millions of dollars.
It decentralizes these decisions and lets more local players get involved. It rewards those who are productive, and encourages those who are squatting on resources to let somebody else give it a shot.
You're missing THE point.
Your comment is too general.
1. You'll only pay higher taxes if your ratio of land/improvements is above a threshold (TBD).
2. The article says that the proposed change would lower taxes for 95+% of the population.