Land is a scarce and valuable commodity that should be divided amongst the community to maximize its benefit for everyone, typically through taxation.

If you want the most valuable land, you should be operating enterprises that provide values high enough to pay for the land.

Do you believe that wealth is an innate right no matter the societal cost -- that people should be able to own such things or amounts of things that it is to the detriment of those around them?

Something like this argument applies to a lot of privately-created wealth, but not to land. Private ownership of land (and the profits generated by it) is completely philosophically incoherent if you spend a little time thinking about it, starting with the fact that private property rights require that stolen assets be returned and not able to be profited from, but all land is stolen when you trace back far enough, and all land ownership claims are the fruit of the poisoned tree.

The best approach would be one where the government issues long-term leases to parcels of land, but property taxes are an okay-ish alternative if that (or LVTs) aren't feasible. Note that this is already what we do for things like the EM spectrum: the government owns it in the public trust, then leases it with an open bidding process.