> Yes, we should probably treat land as much more of a public good
This is the central idea of Georgism, and it extends neatly to other things which are not the product of anyone's labour, like natural resources, pollution, or even issuance of credit (currently the banks have a monopoly on the power to create money/credit).
It's all very interesting, a nice balance which retains the good features of markets but prevents or at least limits the harmful stuff: rent-seeking leeches, pure speculation divorced from fundamentals, etc.
> especially in cities
This reminds me of the “Lockean proviso”:
Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough and as good left, and more than the yet unprovided could use.
That is to say, taking natural resources, labouring, and keeping the profits of that activity, is only legitimate insofar as there is still “enough of it, and as good, in left in common for others”.
> The true value of land has much more to do with the services nearby
Oh absolutely! If a road is built, shops, the neighbourhood improved, schools, businesses, jobs, and therefore the desirability of your land increases... it's you that has to pay society back for what it has given you! It's not the resale value of your land that should rise.