[Nasrudith]

The ironic thing is that land bankers appear to do a useful service in that context - they go through the approval to 'process' the input land into something more valuable - land that is preapproved to build on. Of course that it is so valuable is in itself symptomatic of a larger dysfunction. In a more functioning system it should give far more modest returns since developers would have an option to do it themselves and cut out the middleman. It suggests that the process should be far more streamlined if possible and more broad in use permission categories when possible.

There are valid discussions to be had and due diligence involved in investigating the fitness of land for given purposes - it is more appropriate to use a heavy metal contaminated site for a garbage dump or factory than farm or residential for instance and industrial processes at risk of explosion shouldn't be kept near residences and schools.

I could see unused land being a tax break having some utility if there is some positive externality to it - especially if left accessible. Say that if you have some woods at the fringe of your property you could get some degree of property tax relief since keeping some wilderness does larger service to the environment. A derlict brownfield site however should have no bonus - it serves society best to get rid of it as soon as practical. This tax-break land could be developed if it is more lucrative to buy it and do so. The two could combine in a form of urban renewal incentives by at least encouraging landowners to clean up after themselves by transforming abandoned buildings to greenfield or parkland for tax purposes.