Not georgist flair, because I have... other views too, but note that Milton Friedman was a famous proponent of land value taxes. I pasted below what I wrote for another subreddit, and added some more context below, but the point still stands.

The most important thing about a land value tax is that it is non distortionary; because you can't produce land (except extraordinary circumstances), it does not discourage anything. Capitalists should love it for that reason, and progressives, with the current housing crisis (which is caused mostly by supply side failures yes) should love that this captures some of the value from that problem.

LVT does not harm/help urban/rural areas

In its purest form, a LVT would not reduce sprawl or encourage building taller. A building's current land value is purely based on the total future rent you can expect to charge from it, minus the natural rate of inflation-adjusted interest (it's lower because you have to bring all the money upfront) Consider a piece of land you can charge 10k a year of rent on; you can only do this for 10 years effectively. This is because the value of future rent is lower than the value of current rent, even with inflation, as long as inflation adjusted interest is greater than zero. If you can get 10% inflation adjusted from the stock market, 10k next year would only be worth 9k and it decreases ever year, even if rents increase because of inflation (because you look at inflation adjusted gains) We know this because land value is not infinite, even though land can keep generating value.

So I'll make the simplifying assumption over ten years, the land value would be 100k. If a land value tax of 20% was implemented, you can still charge 10k a year (important: rents are determined by what the market is willing to pay), but you can only get 8k, so land value actually drops to 80k. This is crucial: the economics encourages building taller and less sprawl when land value increases, not decreases. But it does not encourage sprawl either: before, your activity was justified if it produced 10k a year of economic activity. Now, it also has to produce 10k a year of economic activity to justify itself: 8k to justify the purchase price, 2k to pay the tax. A LVT is perfectly neutral, at least theoretically.

The mainstream theory is that the 100k plot of land, when taxed at 20%, will go from needing to justify 10k of economic activity a year, to 12k of economic activity a year, hence justifying building taller. This is not the case because land values decrease exactly proportionately. Let me make it clear: I wholeheartedly support a LVT because it will make our cities better! Another problem a LVT solves is when a new business, new infrastructure, a new bus line opens in a city, lucky property owners get the gain, even though it's paid for by the public (not just infrastructure, but stores and other private businesses can raise land values too). A LVT makes not just cities better, but rural areas and suburban areas. It is not a panacea for urban decay problems either. For too long a LVT has been associated with a left wing urban dream, but it's a policy that can help everyone.

One problem of a land value tax is that it discourages large scale private property developers, for example those that develop entire subdivisions at once, along with parks, businesses and other amenities, that are bundled together, and raise each others' land values (which is a key way they make money). This can be solved by governments that sell you an option: pay (hypothetically) on the current taxes, 3% more every year (a little more than inflation) for, for example, 10 years. This way, the rise in land value from urban development, that is actually the work of private developers, can be properly captured by them (they pay the same land value tax for 10 years, as before the development was done). Another common refrain is also administrative complexity: but in the face of all the above overwhelming benefits, I think this is insignificant and easily surmountable. Another problem is implementation: it would be a retroactive tax on current landowners, but yet this too can be solved, by phasing it in for example.

Long read, but I think this has been overlooked for far too long