[zozbot234]

> It distorts along a completely new axis - whether or not economic activity uses land.

It actually doesn't, because if you hold unused land it's already fully rational for you to sell or lease it, so that some other activity can take place on it instead - any land that's taxed by LVT must by definition have some economic value. LVT may discourage pointless speculation in land values, but that's a benefit and far from a 'distortion'.

[tzs]

The difference is opportunity costs versus real costs.

Say I've got a few acres of forest that I want to keep as forest for carbon capture and as a place for birds to rest during the annual migration, and say there are logging, mining, and oil companies that want to log, mine, or drill on that land.

Under the present system keeping it as a forest doesn't make my position worse. It just means I don't reap the profits that I could reap by selling or leasing. Its an opportunity cost, not a real cost.

Under LVT my taxes go up because of those valuable potential uses. That's a real cost to me for keeping the forest.

[Turing_Machine]

If you're really dead set on the land never being developed, you could always donate it to the government with the proviso that it remain parkland, or donate it to a non-profit land trust.

You could even add a life tenancy for yourself to the deal -- you'd probably get out of paying any taxes at all.