Changing property tax rates doesn't change cities or suburbs into something else, at least not at first. All the property is still owned by the same people. People still live in the same houses.
A Manhattan where the property owners pay huge taxes to the government (because that's what it would take the drive the land value to zero) would still be an extremely expensive place to own property. This might be a good way for the government to raise revenue, but it's not really a "cheap land" situation. It's one where the government is effectively the landlord and everyone pays high "rents" to the government.
It's plausible that such a scheme would lower the cost of living in some places when it's due to speculation, by popping the bubble. But it doesn't lower the cost of living when it's due to the fundamental value of owning property there.
A tradition that arbitrarily prints free money for some and arbitrarily imbues economic burden on others.
The electromagnetic spectrum is sort of like land from an economic perspective except it "appeared" only recently. Nobody owns that or puts a price on it. Everybody purchases a limited lease from the government via auction. This was, in a sense, a frontier.
The Duke of Westminster didnt inherit electromagnetic spectrum from his ancestors coz they won a war in 1066.