All you say is interesting and probably true, but you did not address OP's specific point at all.
Put another way, their concern was based on them specifically paying more taxes on land while society stays the same in regards to use of land. But that doesn't make sense because they're not the only person who would be paying land taxes; everyone who owns land would be, and that changes everyone's incentives for how they use land.
If you mean the part about "how could this ever overcome NIMBY" / tradeoffs between people who already live somewhere and people who want to live somewhere, then yeah, that wasn't what I was talking about.
No! That's not what OP said. He talked about the problem of _a change_ in the height of the tax on the same land over time and this making it become too expensive.
That's not the same thing, because while the land tax would not cause such a problem (as you correctly said) but rather improve the situation due to more efficient use, the problem of _change_ stays.
San Fransisco is a good example, where new housing is not being built to satisfy demand, causing property values to increase, and property taxes are prevented from increasing.
Children can't afford to live in the neighborhood where they grew up because housing costs too much, older people can't downsize because they'll loose their tax breaks, teachers and police officers can't afford to live in the neighborhoods they service, the character of the neighborhood changes as it gentrifies as only the rich can afford to move there, increasing income inequality as the rentier class grows richer through their subsidized investments, etc.
I fail do get that point and in your example, you don't explain how property value increases would have not happened in the existance of a land value tax.
The OP mentioned concerns about changing to a land value tax. I was throwing out there the fact that there are also problems under the current zoning regime, like those I mentioned in San Fransisco, a drastic example.
For instance, say I want to have a small patch of grass for my dog to run around, and moved to my area so that I could have that. As the value of my land grows, you're definitely right that I could sell it to a developer and then move into a more affordable apartment in a multi-tenant building. For humans, though, housing isn't fungible: the home that I grew my family in, the availability of that patch of grass for my dog, and the privacy I enjoyed were all things that cannot be replaced by more dense housing. While the cost of any home is stabilized (which is why it benefits newcomers), the cost of equivalent homes is not (which is why it works against existing residents).
To be clear, I'm not saying that it's wrong to prioritize density. I'm only trying to point out that any policy is going to benefit one group to the detriment of another group; taxation to incentivize more efficient land use is doing so at the expense of those who want to stay in the homes they've lived in.
Restrictive zoning and rent/tax controls benefit incumbent residents at the expense of newcomers, which is widely recognized. Land value taxes improve the efficiency of land use to benefit newcomers at the expense of incumbent residents.
To reiterate, I think land value tax is a good tool for what it aims to accomplish. The main point of my post, though, is that there are legitimate reasons for existing residents to oppose it (e.g. being priced out of their existing home) which most discussions on the matter tend to skip over.
In the end the OP has a point. And even if this point alone is certainly not major and would ve a reason to drop the concept of a land tax, it's also relevant enough to warrant a serious discussion about it imho.