[Based-A]

Considering that there is a fixed amount of land, I do want to raise taxes for those who choose to sit on undeveloped or underutilized land within urban areas rather than either selling it to someone who will develop or developing it themselves. Although it's a bit disingenuous to refer to only refer to it as "raising taxes" since it's taxing based on land value rather than improvement value. It's probable that there would be a significant amount of land plots that would see their taxes decreased as well, especially those along the peripheries of cities since they wouldn't have access or proximity to the same services as a downtown or business district would.

I'd also like to think that a lot of land being developed leads to new businesses appearing and more economic development when compared to just leaving the same lot empty and unused.

[bpt3]

Baltimore is a terrible example if you want to talk about underutilized land. The city literally can't give away vacant homes because of how badly the city is run.

If supply exceeds demand so much that the equilibrium price is below $0, there is no underutilized land.