Earlier quoted context omitted.
One way it happens: In much of the U.S., agricultural land is either exempted, or taxed at a very low rate. The stated rationale (besides openly being an agriculture subsidy) is as a kind of anti-gentrification measure for farmers. Farmers complain that rising land values, due to e.g. expanding cities, would "price them out" if they had to pay taxes on the full (non-agricultural) market value of the land. In practice…
This loophole was closed in Texas....right around the time that Nolan Ryan brand beef started appearing in the grocery stores.
As far as I know, the basic provision still exists, though some bits have been tightened. There is now a "roll-back" provision that requires agricultural land later taken out of agricultural use to pay back the tax reduction for the past 5 years. That makes it harder to game the exemption for short-term investment. But it leaves longer-term investment plays reasonably intact; you can speculate with land investment in the Houston exurbs as long as you aren't planning to actually develop in the near term. If your investment horizon is 30 years, e.g. because you're betting on population expansion and eventual new freeway construction, you'd still get 25 of those tax-advantaged.