The limited nature of land is precisely why possession should be costly. Efficient use of land will produce an economic surplus adequate to pay a reasonable land tax and then some. But if someone squanders their land and insists on letting it sit fallow, so to speak, they will pay for the privilege. If it is sufficiently important to the land owner that the land be unproductive, they will be happy to pay the price in the form of the land tax; otherwise, they will sell the land to someone who can put the land to better use.

There is nothing natural about land ownership. The government creates the artificial construct of land as property to avoid the tragedy of the commons, where no one has an incentive to invest in making land productive--for example, by building a home, factory, or farm. A land tax prevents a land owner from squandering the privileges of land ownership.

My point was only for primary homes. I agree that land left undeveloped must be put to use but with incentive, not as punishment.

"possession of a limited resource shouldn’t create a disadvantage to the owner of said possession"

Disadvantage from what baseline? Possession of a limited resource always creates an advantage to start with. If this is not compensated for with a tax, then aren't people going to compete away the value that would have been taxed? In which case it will be lost to society.

Not if it’s a primary home.

There is a tax at source. There is a tax at transfer/inheritance.

If it’s put to use, there is a tax at consumption. The house always wins. The govt always collects tax.

I disagree with the notion that redistribution should be coercion or punitive. A land tax for undeveloped land is punitive. Property and ownership is constitutionally protected. People shouldn’t be punished for being productive and wealthy.

Undeveloped land is not produced, but it is scarce and has value that can be degraded. Hence, a tax on it is not punishing the productive, but guarding against waste.