to me this looks fair: land does not reproduce, but people do. Give people the right to own a non infinite resource forever and pretty soon you get to the point where 1% of them will own 99% of that resource, which is exactly what is happening now in many contexts.
I don't know if this counts or not, but in the UK there are the concepts of freehold and leasehold. Leasehold requires payment of rent on land (to a landlord), but freehold does not. I believe that technically all land is owned by the crown, but I don't think they tax based on land ownership.
With land, it at least makes sense, because there's a very limited supply of it. So one could reasonably argue that it's just too valuable for society to fully surrender all control of even a part of it on a permanent basis.
In CA they just put a lien on your house. And all that means is you can't sell without clearing the lien (by paying back). I didn't pay property taxes for 2 years once.
AT&T used to claim anyone who attached an unapproved telephone was a criminal: http://bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/471/hout/telecomHistor...
"Freed" slaves in the US used to only get to rent land on which to live: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecropping#United_States
Being in control of your own destiny isn't actually that common, historically.