In the downtown your land tax would be higher because of demand of lots and higher land value, and in the suburbs it would be higher because of higher per-lot costs to the city.
Aren't the infrastructure and service needs (fire department for example) different for no building vs. a one story building vs. a forty story building?
As well, the taxes on sales in the increased number of stores / sales of leases / income tax revenue from the increased number of residents should cover the increase in service costs.
If they don't, you're not running an efficient government. (Ha. Efficient government).
This is why land-value taxes are unpopular: small landowners (e.g. Mom & Dad) want to be able to hold onto their small single-family homes instead of being forced to sell to a developer who would build a multi-family dwelling.
Cf. Prop 13 in California.
You wouldn't buy the property unless you had plans to develop it into something. Unless you're the kind of fool who buys 128gb RAM and only uses 4gb of it.
The price of an item should reflect it's use and probable ROI.
Please keep it civil. Hacker News is not the place for put downs, two of which you've included in your short response.
It does precisely what this article says, disincentives improvements, because "the government" is just going to take more of your money.
Seems illegal to boot (although I imagine there's plenty of precedent).
Taxing the land at least has some logic to it. "This land is serviced by this government, you pay for those services".
As well having a high land tax means you're going to build high revenue generating structures to meet your burden.