Land can make money purely by rising value over time so people can speculate by owning land. There may be little incentive to actually use the land. The ROI on

Land can make money purely by rising value over time so people can speculate by owning land. There may be little incentive to actually use the land. The ROI on a forest takes years whether or not the land value is taxed. You also said earlier that it was a tax on land value so presumably much lower for forestry land than urban land. The primary impact of a land value tax is likely to be on the price of land itself because land will be less profitable. Introduction or increase will hurt those who own land (and its abolition would benefit land owners). If we assume that the cost of access to land (rent) is set by the free market then we can assume that demand is essentially unchanged and the supply of land would if anything be increased (if some speculators sell or start to rent out their land) so access to land for the less wealthy should be cheaper. I think your assumption that ownership is the way that less wealthy access land is fundamentally wrong. I think that this will also apply to the effect on prices of things made on the land on which I expect little impact (although there may be side effects on the rental market that make this more complicated).