Someone owning land and _not_ developing it is a free rider. They are enjoying the effects of aggregation and density without adding to it, and they aren't fungible as they're taking up a spot in the dense area.
What we want in theory is to make it worthwhile to create value, while discouraging free riders.
So we want a tax which will make it so people who don't contribute will lose money by holding on to the property. (Or in other words they'll pay for the privilege)
A 100% LVT means the investor doesn't capture benefits from density at all, and so building density won't be encouraged (as the property value reflects density value plus base value of the property)
A 0% LVT means early buyers gain from network effects and keep capturing value from new joiners without ever adding to the value themselves.
(On second thought not very confident here, as buying in an area signals value and may help get aggregation started, while later joiners do less of the work in creating density)
Someone owning land and _not_ developing it is a free rider. They are enjoying the effects of aggregation and density without adding to it, and they aren't fungible as they're taking up a spot in the dense area.
What we want in theory is to make it worthwhile to create value, while discouraging free riders.
So we want a tax which will make it so people who don't contribute will lose money by holding on to the property. (Or in other words they'll pay for the privilege)
A 100% LVT means the investor doesn't capture benefits from density at all, and so building density won't be encouraged (as the property value reflects density value plus base value of the property)
A 0% LVT means early buyers gain from network effects and keep capturing value from new joiners without ever adding to the value themselves.
(On second thought not very confident here, as buying in an area signals value and may help get aggregation started, while later joiners do less of the work in creating density)