Yes, there's a certain uncomfortable similarity to physiocracy.
Like I say, it's not a really easy thing to reason about. I can't really do it either past a rudimentary level. Your example "parking in Manhattan" is pretty good, but the car itself provides its own utility.
The utility for the parking lot is proved from others owning cars.
Likewise, gasoline provides its own utility. But oil underground? Probably rents.
Rents-thinking comes from Ricardo, but it's strongly associated with Henry George. Fascinating guy; "Poverty and Progress" is a worthy read.
The choice to produce cars seems analogous to the choice to buy land.
Once that choice is implemented, owning a factory (or share of a factory) seems no more and no less active nor noble than owning a piece of land.
One can then own land without actually doing anything with it - you can let it out at rates for others to use. You can't just let a car factory sit. And if you just own the building and land, and do nothing else, then yes- you're just charging rents. But generally owners have to work to own a factory, if at nothing else than making operation policy decisions.
Perhaps a trip thru "Poverty and Progress" is in order? George is better at this than I am.
What I'm talking about simply owning the factory (or perhaps a better example is owning a car company, without managing it yourself).
I'm familiar with Georgism, but I had a similar confusion about land value tax. I just don't see what's so special about land compared to capital goods. I'd rather have a general wealth tax.
I'd just like to see rents in general taxed rather than labor taxed. The theory of rents provides a means to distinguish between ... "socially useful" wealth and "sort of parasitic" wealth."
As you note, there's nothing original about this.
But in any case, I'm not suggesting a labour tax, I'm suggesting a wealth tax. I think my argument is similar to George's: just as LVT encourages efficient use of land, a wealth tax encourages efficient use of wealth in general.
Why is realising that people are going to want cars in future more valuable than realising people are going to want parking in Manhattan in future?
EDIT: IMO the problem is that the rewards for creating capital are indefinite, and that this just becomes more noticeable when you're talking about housing.