A Conversation Between David Dudley Field And Henry George

F: If A, the owner of a city lot with a house upon it, should sell it to B, do you suppose that the price would be graduated by the value of the improvements alone?

G: When the tax upon the land had reached the point of taking the full annual value, it would.

F: To illustrate: Suppose A has a city lot, which, as a vacant lot, is worth annually $10,000, and there is a building upon it worth $100,000, and he sells them to B; you think the price would be graduated according to the value of the building; that is to say, $100,000, after the taxation had reached the annual value of $10,000?

G: Precisely.

Could someone elaborate on this? It appears to me that George endorses taxing the improvements made to land after the improver has been compensated and before it gradually(?) becomes assessed as part of the land.

In another Q&A he also says:

If at any time a landholder gives up possession there would certainly be an entitlement to compensation for any improvements made by the landholder, and this would be paid by the successor.

This specifically qualifies that the new tenant would compensate the old landowner for improvements made by the previous landowner, which further suggests an ongoing distinction between assessing the value of improvements made by the owner and the value of improved land he becomes the owner of.

((In this very interview it's even said "Your theory does not touch the title of land, nor the mode of transferring the title". This is still the most annoying part to me because I want to be able to articulate these positions, but it's difficult without a whole lot of caveats and apologia.))