Well she doesn't have the 500k. This is akin to saying we should force people out if market conditions make their house more expensive. That seems like a really strange consequence to all this, idk
Firstly, if housing wasn't treated as this appreciating asset to invest in (and NIMBY around), this wouldn't be a problem to begin with. So you can argue a part of this is the consequence of a generation's actions.
But in the context of a "single family" home, it's a question worth asking. Should an old couple who's long since had their children move out (and likely have their on children) still be able to sit on the property of a 3-4 bedroom household? Or should there be incentives for them to want to size down their house and free it up for next generation's families?
The population decline will already answer this question for us sooner than expected, but it's an interesting question to ponder on.
If it's not, then I would also like to live in a nice neighborhood for $100k and zero property tax, please.
On the other hand, if it is, then this person has a substantial economic asset that she could reverse mortgage, rent out, or sell.