It's probably unwise for me to wade into this, but I want to point out a few things...
1) I didn't read anything in that article about a re-zoning; although given what passes for journalism today, who knows? Having been involved with some re-zones, existing businesses are generally allowed to continue until a land sale takes place, and if the zoning decreases the value, owners may be made "whole". However, most times the property value increases. Few cities are going to cut their taxable land value on purpose.
2) If he began parceling off surrounding property, he started some of this rolling himself.
3) "they" want me to... Who is "they"? The municipality has no interest here. Someone may have given him wise council, but as I was told many times as a child "People in Hell want ice water." And for reference, when one of my rentals had a pool, I required tenants to carry a million-dollar liabilty policy. The cost was just over $100 per year.
4) Many states, including MI have laws that limit property tax increases to 5% or the Federal rate of inflation, whichever is less. I don't know about Utah. I can tell you that my (due to the crash of '08) city won't see 2007 revenues until (projected) 2027, although values have recovered and then some. If Utah doesn't have similar protections, than its sucks to be on a fixed income I suppose.... that's why the law exists.
5) In essence this story (and the sale) is more interesting and generates more publicity if it's sympathetic.
I'll put the flame suit on now.