Yes, because we're talking about the land -- really, more like the geographic space than the literal land -- and not the buildings.
> Because if you're going to buy the land - no matter what you intend to do with it - you get the land with the existing building.
Okay. And?
> So, if you want to disentangle the price of the land from the price of the building
For property tax purposes I think it's already common to value both the land and the buildings and then sum them up for the total property value.
But here's a building across the street from Central Park in Manhattan. What's the land price? When was the last time that a vacant lot sold in Manhattan?
I mean, I guess you can go by the cost of the last place that sold with a building on it, and the buyer tore down the building. (Subtracting out the cost of the teardown.) When was the last time that happened across the street from Central Park?
So in the places that the land is already heavily used, this is not all that easy to do.
So, if you want to disentangle the price of the land from the price of the building, then you're back to appraisers and accountants... and deadweight loss.
And:
> A land tax wouldn't impose an additional tax to the landowner for improving the value of their land.
How would it not? Do you just keep the land price from 1874 as the "value"? Or do you use the current price of raw land? What's the current price of raw land in Manhattan?