If property rights are near and dear to you I suggest you read the entire UN Agenda 21 "Sustainable Development" document which was produced in 1992. In the 25+ years since, this document has had a major impact upon land and property development throughout the world. I've debated people on a variety of concepts over the last few months, here are just a few things I take exception to:
1- Land Value Tax deployment to an extreme - The LVT concept makes the most sense in urban areas to pressure for dense construction and to limit land speculation. But many LVT/Agenda 21 proponents see this as a tool for rural areas also. A goal is to force compression of farms to high output factory models, with a return of much land to collective ownership to have wide spans of "human free" zones. Rural areas have a lot of unused land - that is what makes them rural. An LVT deployed in this manner is an anti-homesteading tool.
2- Elimination of users fees, further socialization of transportation - This I see as an extremely backwards approach. Search for an FEE article about the distorting effects of transportation subsidies. Truth is we have already been wasting a lot of energy and other resources due to the socialized approach to transportation. The solution to gain efficiency is not to concentrate more power into the hands of city planners, but to fight harder to apply market approaches, so that NO transportation costs are externalized/socialized and everyone pays their full and honest costs to move people or goods.
3- Tragedy of the commons - Land is a fixed resource so the argument goes that the collective good should be watched out for. But collective ownership all too often creates a disincentive to take good care of property. I much prefer private ownership of land, including mineral rights. Some argue about the "fairness" of land ownership, especially when land is passed down from generation to generation, but I don't see collective ownership as a solution.
4- Pollution management - This is where we need to work hard to make sure that land/property owners are liable for abuse which is inflicted upon others. Here again the tragedy of the commons applies. The US military is the world's biggest polluter. The Agenda 21 concept to compress people into urban areas and allow for vast swaths of land to go back to the federal government here in the US (only 4% of land area east of the Mississippi is federally owned now, much more out west) is likely to fail to improve the environment. Private property rights, with a proper rule of law for bad practices, offers more liberty, freedom, and quality of life and can still give us sustainable outcomes.
5- Anti-automobile approaches are short sighted. Light rail doesn't improve efficiency when people still need cars to drive in and out of rail terminals, and empty rail cars result in more resource usage per mile traveled. Again we should strive to get rid of subsidies and allow market improvements. Zoning laws also can be a big detriment to problems of urban sprawl and waste. If all options were open and all pricing was honest, would middle class workers live in large houses far removed from their place of employment if they were paying the full price for road construction and maintenance? Likely not. Socialized pricing approaches for road O & M costs are more to blame than the automobile itself.
In summary private land ownership has more merit that collective ownership. Transportation costs must use strict, easily accountable user fee approaches (a toll for a limited access highway will see less cheating and abuse than a fuel tax system, for example). Environmental efficiency maximizes with economic efficiency in most all cases when all costs are properly accounted for and proper liability for damages are assigned.
Centralized planning and control attracts corrupt, power hungry people. Even if the people involved are benevolent and honest, bad decisions too often happen because all variables and unintended consequences are not properly accounted for. HONEST market approaches with proper assignment of costs, risks, and liabilities will do us better for a sustainable future.