Similar piece from The Economist a few years back, but looking at the opposite side of the coin, wildly successful cities with ridiculous housing costs due to poor land use, but still prescribing LVT as part of the solution:
LVTs would impose concentrated costs on today’s landowners, who face a new tax bill and a reduced sale price. The benefit, by contrast, is spread equally over today’s population and future generations. This problem is unlikely to be overcome. Economists will continue to advocate LVTs, and politicians will continue to ignore them.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2015/04/04/space-and-the-c...
Related article on LVT:
https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2015/04/01/why-henry...
"But if LVTs are so great, why are they so rare?"
LVTs would impose concentrated costs on today’s landowners, who face a new tax bill and a reduced sale price. The benefit, by contrast, is spread equally over today’s population and future generations. This problem is unlikely to be overcome. Economists will continue to advocate LVTs, and politicians will continue to ignore them.
https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/11/10/...