Particularly, the Georgist idea would effectively combat companies buying up huge tracts of land and sitting on it, waiting for cities (say, Denver/Aurora) to sprawl out to the spot they purchased; then build a bunch of houses and charge high premiums for the developments.
As far as I'm concerned, entirely undeveloped/unused land SHOULD be prohibitively expensive. It should either be used by its owner for some benefit, or it should be owned by the state. There's no economically beneficial reason to permit the ownership of unused land; if someone else can use it to a benefit, they should be able to. [That said, 'recreation' and 'the environment' are perfectly good reasons - but that should be the purvey of the state.]
As far as I'm concerned, entirely undeveloped/unused land SHOULD be prohibitively expensive. It should either be used by its owner for some benefit, or it should be owned by the state. There's no economically beneficial reason to permit the ownership of unused land; if someone else can use it to a benefit, they should be able to. [That said, 'recreation' and 'the environment' are perfectly good reasons - but that should be the purvey of the state.]
Comment