The difference is that investment in a company can create “more company”, whereas investment in land can’t create more land.

> investment in land can’t create more land

But investment in housing can definitely create more housing, and that is by far the most common type of landlord.

Then let's move all land ownership to the government and let landlords build housing on it

The landlords could then pay rents to the local government. We could call that landlord taxes or something and use that to fund local services with them. Wait...

Property taxes are voted on by property owners under the steepest moral hazard while leases are actually competitive: this is the difference between the government capturing a minimal vs maximal fraction of the land rents.

If you genuinely think there is little difference, why do you care so much about not switching to a lease system?

Chicago has relatively affordable housing purchase prices as property taxes are very high. The government has taxed away property appreciation. Unfortunately the deferred compensation promises they have made to public sector employees are coming due and further tax hikes are needed.

As described above, a landlord is not a developer is not a property manager. Sometimes a single individual plays multiple roles, but that does not make them the same inseparable job.

You can improve the land, build more units, replace an small old house with a 4 story apartment building, etc.

Correct, which you should be rewarded for as a developer. I recommend 0% tax on improvements and 100% tax on land value.

Without land ownership, how is it decided who gets to develop what where?

The most popular proposal (from Henry George) is to maintain individual land ownership, but impose a land-value tax that approaches 100% of the land rent.

The result is that real estate basically sells for roughly what it would cost to rebuild whatever is built on the land.

There is still a premium charged (in the form of LVT) to allocate access to desirable locations, but the revenue goes to the government/community instead of the previous owner. And the eliminating the incentive for land speculation should actually reduce overall costs.

I didn't say no land ownership. I said tax the gains of land ownership. Nothing changes about who decides what gets built etc.

That is not a problem, but the problem is that now they are financially incentivized to screw their tenants as much as possible. With a different capital project, sure they're screwing their customers, but at least I go shop at a different store. Humans need housing, and moving is annoying and expensive.