[dropit_sphere]

Economically advantageous sprawl, though---or it would have to be, to meet the owner's goals of not being a financial burden.

I think the idea is that in that situation the owner sells, though.

[murphyslab]

Sprawl isn't economically advantageous to cities, since low-density sprawl does not generate sufficient funds to cover the associated infrastructure. High-density urban cores end up subsidizing those infrastructure costs. [0] The end result is what Strong Towns refers to as the "Growth Ponzi Scheme". [1]

[0] https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2021/8/4/the-question-ev...

[1] https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme

[dropit_sphere]

I certainly sympathize, but I'm not sure what this has to do with land tax. If cities can't efficiently provide infra to certain building patterns, they should either reduce their guarantees ("You can build there, but you'll have to lay down wire yourself"), or prohibit building differently. Both seem compatible with an LVT.