Meanwhile I pointed out that over the past 10 years the total increase in values was 45%. This 14% increase over two years plus whatever increases happened in the previous eight were more than, equal to, or less than 45%? It should be easily teased out of the city's budget, assuming a constant rate of collections / tax delinquency and no change in the total number of units subject to tax (I'm guessing that these may combine to cloud the picture, but I'd still like to know).
You really need to get it through your skull that real estate taxes and most other taxes are ad valorem and not per capita. Think of it this way. Real estate taxes are levied per dollar, not per gallon or per parcel. When the tax base grows through increasing gas prices or increasing real estate prices, tax revenues go up, even if the number of gallons sold remains the same and the number of parcels taxed remains the same. That doesn't mean that taxes have gone up. What matters is the effective tax rate. When that goes up, taxes have been raised, and when that goes down taxes have been lowered. What doesn't matter so much is the total take. This is the whole basis of supply side economics. If you lower the rate by less than the base is growing, you can combine lower tax rates with increasing tax revenues. That's the magic Philly's been trying to pull off since Rendell became mayor, and I think that Philly's been succeeding at achieving this tax alchemy.