Again, that's the whole idea behind LVT: it minimizes non-productive use of land, like housing.
I like LVT just as much as the next guy, but we can't have it both ways: _either_ LVT has no deadweight losses, because it doesn't change any opportunity costs for land use and thus has no (direct) influence on land use. _Or_ LVT does have an influence, and you want to argue that it's the 'correct' one.
However: with or without LVT, the opportunity cost differences in different land uses are exactly the same. The same amount of LVT is due no matter what you do with the land or who owns it.
LVT might have an indirect influence on land use, because financing your government via LVT means you can potentially lower other less efficient taxes. Removing these other more distorting taxes can have an influence on land uses.
How is housing a non-productive use of land? Why would housing be something to be minimized?
But see my reply at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44189482