Most land I bet is leveraged (hence the high price!) and taxing it will put pressure on home owners and investors. It is great for the truely rich who have a $50m mansion because it is chump change and will pay $375k which is approx zero but for someone with a typical house $1m it is $7500 which is less money for food and other household expenses and they may be paying a big mortgage already and not rich in the true sense.

Taxation ain't simple. There are always second order effects.

I am not against land tax but using it as a kneejerk levy could have unintended consequences.

Instead taper onto a reasonable land tax. Just raise taxes if you need more money in a fair and progressive way.

Of all the places you can avoid flight from to avoid tax California must be the easiest.

Since so much of land value is in downtowns, in a theoretical shift to land value tax, most of the increased land value revenue would come from vacant and underdeveloped parcels downtown. The median tax burden on single or multi family homes would actually be reduced. An example is this model of Spokane: https://landeconomics.org/reports/spokane-report#:~:text=sin...

And a lot of the time, it’s those truly rich people who own those vacant/underdeveloped parcels in downtowns.