Can the unimproved value of land be assessed separately from the buildings and improvements upon it accurately enough, in practice, for a land value tax to work as Georgism's theory intends?

Georgism's theoretical case for taxing land value alone rather than improvements is not itself disputed among economists who accept it (see the Friedman and Stiglitz endorsements recorded on the mint), but assessors in practice must separate a parcel's bare land value from the value its buildings add, a split that is straightforward for vacant land and genuinely difficult for a developed urban parcel where land and structure value are entangled in the observed sale price. Jurisdictions that have tried split-rate or pure land value taxation, Pennsylvania cities among the most studied cases, report persistent assessment disputes and administrative cost as practical obstacles distinct from the underlying economic theory.