"I'd tell you why you're wrong but I'm busy" can be said to anyone about anything. Care to expand?

The point of an LVT is to incentivize the efficient use of land and to compensate the public for the recognition of exclusionary title to use of a location. This doesn't change based on who it is that is using the land or what they are using it for. Take a $20 million plot of land in LA; it makes no sense to exempt a person with a mansion there from paying a tax and penalizing a developer who builds a huge apartment building that can house 50 families! By keeping the LVT flat and not exempting particular uses, you avoid distorting the market and- in the case of a homestead exemption- punishing people who build apartments over single family homes, etc.

> The point of an LVT is to incentivize the efficient use of land and to compensate the public for the recognition of exclusionary title to use of a location.

I'd say an additional point should be to try and not make it so that the path of least resistance for the system of taxes being for a few corporations to accumulate all the available real estate. From what you say you're fine with one company owning all the land as long as they pay the tax. What I'm proposing is similar except the tax gets more and more prohibitive the more you own, instead of being a flat rate.

A heavy, mostly-flat LVT should be the end goal, but would have to be phased in over a generation to be politically viable and not cause tremendous social disruption.

Nobody's going to get behind a law that kicks grandma out of the house she's been living in for 50 years.

You have to start with residential properties owned by investing companies first, then phase it into nonprimary residences owned by individuals, then primary residences over a certain dollar amount for people under 65, etc. Then you slowly ramp up land value taxes and dial back traditional property taxes until they're entirely replaced.