an investor would be indifferent between owning the same building in a big city or the countryside because he would not see a single cent of the rent difference.
An investor wouldn't be indifferent between owning the same building in a big city vs countryside because there is more potential for building improvements (higher density, etc.) to net a substantial return on investment due to capturing a higher rate of return (rents from tenants) than costs (land tax). Land tax isn't a per-plot demand thing, it is a per-region demand thing and individual plots can make more than they can expect to lose in tax. (Which is exactly the reason LVT is said to be good for development and growth)
Suburban home owners would have reason to become even more NIMBY towards higher density housing
In theory they should become more YIMBY for high-density housing as it soaks up demand for housing for those who are willing to settle for less space and thus lowers land rents of the region by proxy.
p
An investor wouldn't be indifferent between owning the same building in a big city vs countryside because there is more potential for building improvements (higher density, etc.) to net a substantial return on investment due to capturing a higher rate of return (rents from tenants) than costs (land tax). Land tax isn't a per-plot demand thing, it is a per-region demand thing and individual plots can make more than they can expect to lose in tax. (Which is exactly the reason LVT is said to be good for development and growth)
In theory they should become more YIMBY for high-density housing as it soaks up demand for housing for those who are willing to settle for less space and thus lowers land rents of the region by proxy.
More options
Context Copy link