I'm sure you're right about me misunderstanding something, but one thing I want to clarify is that while I may not be priced out of the city, I may be priced ou

I'm sure you're right about me misunderstanding something, but one thing I want to clarify is that while I may not be priced out of the city, I may be priced out of my home (or similar homes). For instance, say I want to have a small patch of grass for my dog to run around, and moved to my area so that I could have that. As the value of my land grows, you're definitely right that I could sell it to a developer and then move into a more affordable apartment in a multi-tenant building. For humans, though, housing isn't fungible: the home that I grew my family in, the availability of that patch of grass for my dog, and the privacy I enjoyed were all things that cannot be replaced by more dense housing. While the cost of any home is stabilized (which is why it benefits newcomers), the cost of equivalent homes is not (which is why it works against existing residents). To be clear, I'm not saying that it's wrong to prioritize density. I'm only trying to point out that any policy is going to benefit one group to the detriment of another group; taxation to incentivize more efficient land use is doing so at the expense of those who want to stay in the homes they've lived in. Restrictive zoning and rent/tax controls benefit incumbent residents at the expense of newcomers, which is widely recognized. Land value taxes improve the efficiency of land use to benefit newcomers at the expense of incumbent residents. To reiterate, I think land value tax is a good tool for what it aims to accomplish. The main point of my post, though, is that there are legitimate reasons for existing residents to oppose it (e.g. being priced out of their existing home) which most discussions on the matter tend to skip over.