> If people value greenspace, than the land around said greenspace will have a higher value. LVT would then incentivize those land owners to maximize their value, which would obviously include not destroying or removing the greenspace.

This is where I believe LVT breaks down when faced with greedy reality.

In a perfect world, I totally agree with the above. That would be pretty awesome.

Could that ever happen in the real world of greedy corrupt politicians who never look further in time than the next election?

How do we assign monetary value to pleasant and beautiful things that provide quality of life? Like the parks and playgrounds and sports fields, etc etc. I'm sure there are studies, but the numbers are not as clear-cut and not as immediate as tax revenue this quarter, so they get ignored.

Each individual lot gets evaluated in isolation and the most profitable choice, individually, is to maximize revenue on that lot, so every lot ends up being a high rise concrete box, either offices or apartments. It would take a very brave politician to say let's look at the big picture long term, sacrifice some tax revenue today and build for a better quality of life because long term that will raise values more.

LVT is uncommon so a lot of it is argued in theory, but I suggest looking at a somewhat similar decision process happening in cities today, which relates to the homeless.

How are cities reacting to homeless? They fence off all the open green space and parks, rip out benches and bus stop roofs, eliminate all public bathrooms and so on. Making the area miserabe for everyone, destroying quality of life. Oh but it is difficult to measure quality of life, so they don't.

It would be much wiser for society as a whole to attend to the homeless and let us all have the open parks and benches and bathrooms, city life would be far more pleasant and long term also more profitable if cities can thrive instead of decay.

But that's not how politicians think or act, so I'm fairly sure it would be the same with LVT.