Farmland, generally being unimproved and un-serviced, would be taxed at a low rate; the improved city-fied land would be taxed at a much higher rate.
Per Wikipedia, “According to the USDA , small family farms average 231 acres”, or 934824 square meters. From what I’ve gathered on-line, that 231 acres’ value/price would be very roughly $1.75M. Typical tax rates for farm land are 0.25-0.6% or $400K. The annual tax is something like $435K to $1M (yikes!) per year per family farm.
Around here, the minimum house lot is 60ft x 60ft or 334.45 square meters. An average small family farm would yield 2,795 such lots. Each lot are presently taxed at, say $2K/year (for a rural-ish small town) to $4K/year for larger towns. That set of 2.8K lots would yield $5.9M to $11.2M per year.
However, if land-value tax was in effect, the town/city lots would be taxed at $10K-$20K (it’s important to remember that income tax would be zero, so you could well afford the land tax). Bonus, house prices would go down, because the taxes (a constant annual cost) are so high (basic economics, eh).
Total land-value tax of that family farm converted to town/city house lots? It would be some $28M to $56M per year - roughly fifty times higher.
Some jurisdictions partially implemented land-value tax by assessing a windfall tax assessment - most of the ‘improved value’ of the land is clawed back in taxes. This is fair seeing as the only reason the value increased is because of improvements taxpayer have paid for. How do you think that countries like Norway are able to pay for free education, health care, good retirement pensions, etc? Very happy people, those Norwegians.
Under the present system, YOU pay for improvements (through the nose!), the real estate mogul reaps the benefits.