from Note 4:    It should not be forgotten that land for which the demand
    is so weak that its site value cannot be easily distinguished from the value
    of its improvements,
      is certain to be land of but little value, and almost certain to have no
  value at all. ...
  Note 14. Land values are lower in all countries of
                          poor government than in any country of better government,
                    other things being equal. They are lower in cities of poor
                    government, other things
                          being equal, than in cities of better government. Land values
                          are lower, for example, in Juarez, on the Mexican side of the Rio Grande,
                          where government is bad, than in El Paso, the neighboring city on the
                          American side, where government is better. They are lower in the same
                          city under bad government than under improved government. When Seth
                          Low, after a reform campaign, was elected mayor of Brooklyn, N.Y.,
                          rents advanced before he took the oath of office, upon the bare expectation
                          that he would eradicate municipal abuses. Let the city authorities
                          anywhere pave a street, put water through it and sewer it, or do any
                          of these things, and lots in the neighborhood rise in value. Everywhere
                          that the "good roads" agitation of wheel
                          men has borne fruit in better highways, the value of
                          adjacent
                          land
                          has increased.
                          Instances
                          of this effect as results of public improvements might
                          be collected in abundance. Every man must be able to
                          recall some within
                          his own experience.
   And it is perfectly reasonable that it should be so.
          Land and not other property must rise in value with desired improvements
          in government, because, while any tendency on the part of other kinds
          of property to rise in value is checked by greater production, land can
          not be reproduced.
  Imagine an utterly lawless place, where life and property
          are constantly threatened by desperadoes. He must be either a very
    bold man or a very avaricious one who will build a store in such a community
          and stock it with goods; but suppose such a man should appear. His
    store
          costs him more than the same building would cost in a civilized community;
          mechanics are not plentiful in such a place, and materials are hard
    to get. The building is finally erected, however, and stocked. And now what
          about this merchant's prices for goods? Competition is weak, because
          there are few men who will take the chances he has taken, and he charges
          all that his customers will pay. A hundred per cent, five hundred per
          cent, perhaps one or two thousand per cent profit rewards him for his
          pains and risk. His goods are dear, enormously dear — dear enough
          to satisfy the most contemptuous enemy of cheapness; and if any one
          should wish to buy his store that would be dear too, for the difficulties
          in
          the way of building continue. But land is cheap! This is the
          type of community in which may be found that land, so often mentioned
          and so seldom seen, which "the owners actually can't give away,
          you know!"
   But suppose that government improves. An efficient administration
          of justice rids the place of desperadoes, and life and property are
    safe. What about prices then? It would no longer require a bold or desperately
          avaricious man to engage in selling goods in that community, and competition
          would set in. High profits would soon come down. Goods would be cheap — as
          cheap as anywhere in the world, the cost of transportation considered.
          Builders and building materials could be had without difficulty, and
          stores would be cheap, too. But land would be dear! Improvement
          in government increases the value of that, and of that alone. ...
  Q43. Is there any land question in places where land is cheap? In Texas,
    for example, you can get land as cheap as two dollars an acre. Is there a
    land question there?
    A. There is no place where land is cheap in the sense implied by the question.
    Land commands a low price in many places, but it is poor land; it is not
    cheap land. It is true that in Texas there is land that can be had for two
    dollars an acre, but it would yield less profit to each unit of labor and
    capital expended upon it than land in New York City which costs hundreds
    of thousands of dollars an acre. The valuable New York land is the cheaper
    of the two. The land question is the question in every place where land costs
    more than it is worth for immediate use. ... read the book