The problem is if the state doesn't see eye to eye with you on the value.
This can happen for all sorts of reasons, they might be using a simple algorithm that takes into account nearby values / recent sales as comparables. Those lots might have subtle features which makes them much more valuable than yours. Etc.
You get hit twice if over-assessed, first of all because you have to pay more, secondly because the high taxes act as a drag on what you can sell it for.
In theory this can result in "negative value", ie, the land generates less income under any plausible use than the property taxes cost.
Then you're stuck! What idiot will buy your white elephant now? How can you stop paying the taxes if no one will buy it? Which is why any fair lvt proposal needs at least an out where landowners can hand stuff back to the state.
I'm trying to imagine the context where there is a property in an area with high sales pushing the price of land tax up but this property isn't worth a similar amount for being in the same area.
If people are buying in an area and that drives up prices because it shows the area is valuable, in what conditions would your land not be worth a similar (ish) value?
You might have a heritage building, you might have some kind of natural feature that needs to be preserved, you might have some kind of issue like site contamination, there are lots of ways. If you're lucky the tax ratings might take them into account, if you're not, they won't.
The proposal by Detroit here is to increase taxes on abandoned land. It's not binary, I'm sure some speculated parcels will not be viable to hold any longer if the taxes rise to the same price for built and unbuilt land.
I think in this scenario there'd be a couple of options:
1. The land is worth a lot. If that is the case, you should be able to sell it reasonably easily.
2. The land is worth very little. In that case the tax would be insignificant because the land has so little value.