[ruste]

The problem with this is that it's fundamentally incompatible with zoning.

I own a chunk of acreage in farmland adjacent to my metropolitan area. The township won't allow it to be developed further due to density restrictions, I have my one house on it but that's all I get and I'm happy with that, but his tax would be implemented at the state level. The state would say "You have a lot of valuable land here right next to the city. We're going to tax you wildly on land you can't develop.

Furthermore, this tax would just serve to increase speculative churn and encourage chunks of land that would eventually go on to become parks and public lands to be broken down by landowners into small chunks for the densest and most valuable uses.

The whole problem is that what is valuable is not necessarily what is good for society and this does nothing to address that. I'm always struck by how weirdly free-market / Laissez faire land value taxes are given who typically pushes them.

[zozbot234]

You're disregarding the fact that landowners are already incented to devote land to its highest and best use, as measured by how much they can gain for it. The benefit derived from a local amenity, such as a park, is currently reflected in surrounding land values; LVT would harness this value for the community that created it in the first place, rather than leave it entirely to private landowners.

[ruste]

I probably could have been clearer with my point. A park is never the highest and best use based on gain. A LVT would make it _harder_ to create things that may be valuable in ways not measured by the market.