An interesting take on the situation. The real problem is that the attributes that would otherwise contribute to high prices for agricultural land have been socialized while land for residences have been maintained as artificially scarce. That depresses the price of ag land and raises the price of residential land, a recipe ripe for controlled conversion requiring a payoff to political gatekeepers.
It's a stupid and corrupt model, one that is bad for land and bad for people. The economic causes and environmental consequences are well documented in my book, although it uses the timber industry instead of ag. The economics are entirely analogous.
An interesting take on the situation. I'll admit I'm having problems understanding your offering of insight.
I understand you to mean that since land values are manipulated for societal/economic purposes, as opposed to a free market model, the practice lends itself to corruption of public officials and their personal enrichment at a rate greater than that created by tax codes prior to 1968.
I also understand you to suggest that there are other models available which achieve the same ends (preservation of an agricutural base and gentification of higher density habitation areas) without the documented negative consequences.
Am I understanding you correctly?