Quite sad, especially when read in the light of "Why are there NIMBYs?" (https://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/00-04.PDF)
In essence, the paper argues that highly-leveraged homeownership causes NIMBYs.
> [...] and put in place higher taxes for non-owner occupied dwellings.
Why exempt owner occupiers? There are the worst NIMBYs.
>The solution to housing problems is to build more housing. Period. There is nothing interesting there. The only reason it hasn't been done is because it's blocked politically by current home owners that "don't want the feel to change".
The interesting problem would seem to be convincing home owners to want the change. Here's one innovative perspective on the issue:
Certainly there could be others as well. It seems like a lot of people are locked-in to the position that nothing can change unless we get a political coalition together to force the existing homeowners into a situation they don't desire (without properly compensating them). What has been/could be done to make them partners in the growth instead? What kind of new financial structures/contracts could be invented to deal with the types of issues that have been traditionally solved with "eminent domain"?
I feel that in many of these discussions, it's beneficial to see NIMBYism as a response to an incomplete insurance market, as described in .
This is not to say it is a complete or normative defense of NIMBYism, but rather that a lot of knee-jerk SJW sort of reaction is missing the point and failing to address, or even really attempt to understand, where NIMBYs are coming from.
Part of me wonders if this could be solved by tech, particularly insurance products that offer homeowners protection against the variety of ways that seemingly-great expansion projects can go wrong. I'd enjoy working on that sort of problem, except that so much of the current interest in this entire topic is political, and politicians have some incentive to maintain zoning-like systems because it offers them (the politicians) great opportunities for rent seeking, by being the gatekeepers of an approval process that should instead be more straightforward and just hedged by homeowners in the form of custom insurance products.
 "Why are there NIMBYs?" William Fischel, < https://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/00-04.PDF >
A land value tax would help to start fixing the high house prices in Silicon Valley.
(Directly, it would decrease the capitalized price of land that the house sits on. More indirectly, it would decrease incentives for NIMBYs, thus helping with more supply of housing in the longer run.)
It would not change the tax-inclusive cost of housing. Land taxes can not be passed on.
You are right, that the tax-inclusive cost of housing won't change with a land tax on its own, at least not as a first order effect.
If however, you eg use the land tax proceeds to lower taxes on labour and capital, building higher (ie using more capital for housing) will become more economically feasible. (No economic revenue will be lost. Lower taxes in a jurisdiction directly lead to higher land prices---which the land tax will capture.)
There's also some other second order effects, like less NIMBYism. (https://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/Papers/00-04.PDF) This will make development easier.