Nope. If I'm hurting from my tax burden, I don't want to remove restrictions on development which will make my land more valuable (unless I've decided to move). On the contrary, there's nothing I'd love more than a zoning restriction which not only stops my neighbour building an apartment block overlooking my property but also reduces my taxes as my dwelling no longer sits on land which can be considered prime real estate for building apartments on.
(As an aside, talking about 'cranking up the pain a lot' on people who are guilty of the crime of enjoying a house they bought in an area which is nice as a benefit to the system is a large part of the reason that Georgism has never really got anywhere)
> This already happens. Those who want to NIMBY against new development will do so in any shape or form it takes, and it's not clear that the current paradigm is really effectively addressing this either.
But as I said in the part you reply to, LVT explicitly creates new incentives to NIMBY: people that do not find the noise of a mass transit system bothersome will find the tax increases bothersome (unless they're personally big users of the system). That's more people opposing the development than before. Indeed it creates incentives to NIMBY against stuff almost universally considered good because the further away the excellent public school is, the less tax you pay. This doesn't mean facilities will be built in deprived areas, it means people will seek to block them being built in good areas. A "solution" to NIMBYism which creates more NIMBYism is no kind of solution at all
The crime is not climbing the ladder, it's climbing the ladder and then pulling it up so only the few who overcome a much higher stumbling block can join. Or, as satire site Reductress put it, "‘All Are Welcome Here,’ Says Sign in Neighborhood Where Average Home Costs $2 Million"
> https://reductress.com/post/all-are-welcome-here-says-sign-i...
The pain is all felt by people that lived in an area when it really wasn't appealing, the people who would have been sufficiently proud of how that area's changes to turn down the carrot of life changing financial offers until LVT beats them with the stick of No, Really, You're Too Poor To Live Here
The wealthier, whiter sort of person that actively looks for $2m houses gets upsides as well as downsides, especially if they actually want to live in an area where only people who can overcome the stumbling block of high incomes can afford.
Or as a satirist might put it: "Rich Neighbourhoods Lack Diversity, Advocate of Accelerating Gentrification via the Tax System Suggests"
Yes, that's the point, the current levels of incentive are not working so we need to crank it up
> LVT doesn't solve the neighbours not wanting it
The point is to crank up the pain, a lot. NIMBY-ism can be very local since not every parcel of land is being developed at the same time, but the beauty of LVT is that land value doesn't vary much in a local immediate area, so it hits everyone the same. The idea is that if everyone is hurting, they will seek relief as a group by overall relaxing restrictions that would better allow them to meet their tax burden.
> For some things it makes it worse: now people protest against mass transit they don't think they'll hear or will bring the "wrong sort of people" into the neighbourhood because land near a transit hub will be in a higher tax bracket.
This already happens. Those who want to NIMBY against new development will do so in any shape or form it takes, and it's not clear that the current paradigm is really effectively addressing this either.
> And if LVT is assessed on development potential of the land
LVT is assessed on land value, and development potential is but one piece. Other pieces include convenience, good amenities like parks and schools, etc.
Part of why I find LVT so appealing is that it has the potential to address (not necessarily completely solve, but address) the US's very unequal system of things like access to good schools, parks, convenience that are more or less funded by local property taxes; if you want good services, you will also be forced to open those up to others as well to address your tax burden.