While I have sympathy, I also point right back at landlords. The landlord bought the land and building for $1 million in 1995 according to spin. It is worth a lot more now, and the tenants are paying for the landlord's costs (the property tax) of holding a property that is worth far more as land than building. The tax shift adds to that, but it isn't only the shift.
Triple net leases don't really make much sense for properties that are under developed. It is a great deal for the land lord - but tenants should not sign a triple net lease there for anywhere near a similar $/sqft of a building that does not have redevelopment potential. Even better would be not to sign a lease which includes flow through for property taxes at all. The landlords should market properties with the lease rate including property taxes. That way, if the property is uncompetitive, they have massive incentive to redevelop.