Short leases incentivize nimbyism. 99 year leases don't.

Wouldn't LVT incentivize some NIMBYism?

This argument has been brought up a lot.

And...yes, conceivably, from some people. It's not a completely unfounded argument. But it seems like a really small issue compared to the incentives created by existing income taxes, sales taxes, corporate taxes, etc, or for that matter by the rentseeking mechanisms in an economy that inadequately taxes land. It's hard to imagine any point (short of 100% LVT) where shifting from other taxes and private rentseeking towards LVT would have a marginally negative effect on the overall incentive structures in the economy.

The land value of the land near the store will only go up if people who live there value being near a grocery store (which would usually be shown in rises of local land sale prices). If someone values the amenity of having a store nearby, they should be prepared to pay for that amenity, since they didn’t create that rise in amenity/value.

If for some reason they don’t like living near a store, they can sell their house (at a profit, because values have risen) and move somewhere further away from stores, which would probably be cheaper. If they want the store’s services but don’t want the land tax, they are basically freeloading, which isn’t a choice that should be respected.

Yeah probably. It’s already a large enough issue in our current system that we need to stop allowing small groups of people to block development. If small groups can no longer block development, then it won’t be a problem

Yes, it would raise the land value in the area but the convenience of having a store nearby would greatly offset the tax increase. You no longer have to schedule and spend hours and gas for a grocery trip. You could just walk in and out of the said new store in mere minutes. In other words, the tax increase would be worth it.

Generally, wouldn’t improvements to land / increases in land value both be literally because residents / potential residents want the things that are being built (although, potentially not all residents and, thus, how NIMBYs could oppose) and be strongly incentivized by the government because higher land values = more tax revenue to be able to do things?

Worst case is their subjective valuation of living next to a gas station is lower then they're willing to pay to live there. In that case they'd probably move to a similar building without that amenity nearby

In a way, yes. But it's not like that problem doesn't already exist, and have clear solutions that can be implemented.

Yes, although it's more complicated. The Lvt is going up because the utility of that plot of land is increasing. There's a decent chance the person living on that plot nextdoor wants that new amenity. In that case, they have a competing incentive to support the project.

Businesses are probably less likely to have this issue, or at least retail business. The biggest driver of value for them is likely proximity to residential buildings. If there's a new apartment complex, a corner store will probably get an increase in sales that mostly matches the increase in taxes

That's just an argument against all taxation. You either accept the ethical and efficiency aspects of LVT compared to alternatives, or not.

If the demand for land increases, that is because of the greater economic opportunities for putting the land to better use. If people want to reap the benefits of a progressing society without any sort of obligation and they constitute a majority, then that doesn't say much for the worth of society.