I see someone is discovering the classic Marxist theory of land, with the difference between differential and absolute ground rent! This approach has longtime dominated in the Italian planning discurse, but it is not really popular in US or Canada when people talk about land https://twitter.com/mtsw/status/1288635330053025792

The obsession of planning reformists in the 1960-70s in Italy was to reappropriate to the public at least part of the absolute rent (the plus value generated by the transformation of land from agricultural to buildable), as this was considered the main driver of housing costs

The failed 1963 "Sullo" planning reform, one of the trauma that shaped the planning milieu, envisioned the municipal expropriation of expansion areas and the concession to developers and homeowners of only a longterm renewable leasehold.

This was considered the more rational way to keep out of the market speculation dynamics the value of one of the main factors of production of housing: the land. In this approach the residential real estate was considered a "consumption" good, not an asset.

The reform failed in what is still called the "planning scandal" (scandalo urbanistico): an aggressive counter-campaign of the conservatives press, the resignation of government, and (we discovered only many years later) even the, luckily aborted, preparation of a military coup.

So yes, touching the mechanism that helps the real estate prices to go up (that is : land prices, because the physical building depreciates), especially in a society of diffused homeownership, is like touching a 25k v line. You probably die, at least politically.