Under this lens "unimproved value" might be a red herring, the concept is "the market value of the lot after a complete demolition of everithing on it" or equivalently "the market price of the exclusive priviledge of being able to build things on a piece of land".
Maybe you should take it up with the proponents of Georgism who use that term?
And offer these reasons to switch.
But just at a quick glance:
"the market value of the lot after a complete demolition of everithing on it" doesn't make sense, because even a single disused subway tunnel could easily double the value of the land.
There are things "on" the lot and things "around" the lot.
An empty lot the right size to build a condo in front of a subway station is significantly more valuable than an otherwise identical lot 5km away from the closest subway station.
A consequence is that what is built around you becomes the main factor in how many taxes you pay.
Which is ok since what is build around you is also the main factor of how much value you can extract from the land you own.
> Maybe you should take it up with the proponents of Georgism who use that term?
the term is perfectly adeguate, for a given piece of land (like a lot you can build a condo on) you consider its value before any improvement ON it.
The main conflict seems to be about either considering gigantic pieces of land or considering improvement that are not ON the piece of land but around it.
For context[1]:
> A land value tax (LVT) is a levy on the value of land without regard to buildings, personal property and other improvements upon it.
