Government only retains sovereign ownership for land in fee simple. Some property in the US is actually allodial--although enforcement generally treats it like fee simple anyway, and any attempt to assert the rights inherent in that form of title requires a lawyer, so only the rich can really take advantage of it.

Allodial title is a good thing. But the city still has to pay the bills.

The rule is that prudent management of the commons has a cost, and that cost must be paid. It is reasonable to divvy up the bill by the extent to which someone is likely to benefit from the commons. As it turns out, assessing local taxes based on the value of land property owned in the jurisdiction is a reasonable approximation, it turns the tax rolls into an easy correspondence with the plat maps and ownership records, and it is not very difficult to assess. It's fine to assess the tax based on value of owned property. My point is that the taxes should attach to the owner of record, and not the property itself. Indeed, the article details several unintended consequences from various methods of assessment.

It would also be reasonable to pay by a flat capitation, but that is a regressive tax in practice, despite being neutral in theory. Sales tax is more progressive, as the tax scales with the amount of money you can afford to spend. Income tax can also scale progressively, such that the people who can afford to pay more by virtue of higher incomes must do so. Those are all the responsibility of people. If they fail to pay, the punishment lands on them. And I think it is not proper to seize real property for debts that were unilaterally imposed on people without their explicit individual consent. Seize cash. Seize bank accounts. Seize stock certificates. Do not evict a family from their home. Do not take the vehicle they use to drive to work. And yet, those latter two are often the only asset classes subjected to property taxes.

I am already a bit hostile to eminent domain thanks to the Kelo v. New London case, which stretched the concept of "public use" beyond the point of reason. I vote my one vote as hard as I can, and yet society still remains unjust. This is a failure of society's rules. Those treated unfairly by them have always had the option to stop playing by that set of rules, and institute another that they find more suitable. You have no inherent obligation to a society that does not respect your contributions to it.

You have one vote. You also have one voice, that spreads based on the height of your soap box. You also have a wallet, which you can open or close based on the societal values behind those things you might wish to buy. And you have one clever ape brain, which has a built-in dislike of unfairness, and the ability to set goals and make plans.

It is reasonable that one might wish to protest the imprudent spending of municipal funds by refusing to pay tax? Or is it preferable that one pays the tax, as assessed and on time, and then assassinates the mayor and city council, because all other reasonable and effective means of protest have been rendered unusable? I would prefer that protest via withholding of material support remain a viable option.