Map these values, and you have a pretty good tool for good land assessments. And for lots a wider or narrower, or deeper or shallower, there have been very usable tables for over 100 years. NYC was doing this in the first decade of the 20th century.
A tax on land values asks us to pay to exclude others from our site. In the middle of nowhere, that price can be $0. On valuable sites, it can be quite high.
Today, a lot of city land is leased, and the tenant pays the landlord for the use of the land. The higgling of the market sets the price. There is a lot of revenue potential there, and collecting it for public purposes doesn't take from anyone something he created.
And that can't be said for sales taxes, or wage taxes, or taxes on buildings.
Land tax (important to distinguish) doesn't inhibit labor and effort. On the contrary cities implementing land taxes see increase in output because land gets better allocated to who need it. Simply because people sitting on vacant and absent land in the middle od cities drop it and sell it somebody else.
Land is not subjective but perfectly objective. It is a necessary input to all production - whether it is agricultural (obvious) or manufacturing (your factory has to be placed somewhere) or services (you need access to concentrated area for qualified workers in big cities).
You can't even survive without standing on land.
100% of people need land to survive so how can it be subjective? It might be subjective to birds.
So it's no different to rent in this respect. It IS effectively rent, it just spreads the unpredictability of renting across the whole society instead of concentrating the negative downside among one portion of society.
Unimproved land is pretty fungible. If you have two empty lots across the road or even in the same area they will usually end up costing about the same.
Whether it would be /accepted/ is another matter. But it's not impossible in the squaring-the-circle sense.