Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like a system that can only work in a fully urbanized country. Otherwise, a nonexhaustive list of problems it seems guaranteed to cause: - Push those currently in rural poverty over the edge into homelessness. Their homes will stand vacant and fall to ruin, leaving large swaths of land dotted with the wreckage of houses, trailers, and even whole villages. Some of it will be highly toxic. Many of the people…
Your reversing the effect. A steeper land tax, but no development tax, discourages sprawl and incentivizes parsimonious & maximally effective use. Which would be the opposite dynamic to the one you are concerned about. An income tax break on food production would be a good way to keep food prices lower, while maintaining a farmers incentive to use land efficiently. And is good economics: matching a national tax break…
ETA: You seem to have edited your post after I made mine. However, your edit does not in any way explain how "steeper land tax" does not hurt people in rural areas. I'm not concerned with sprawl; I'm concerned with rural people near the poverty line being taxed out of their homes with no recourse.
Also, "income tax breaks for food production" a) do not scale proportionally with farmer land use, and b) would seem, on first glance, to encourage overfarming, rather than letting fields lie fallow periodically, which would be a short-term gain for long-term losses and damage to the soil.