The Pittsburgh experience affirms standard economic theory, predicting that a major increase in land value taxation should be neutral. That is, have little impact on development decisions.

Critics of LVT in Pittsburgh suggest their experience with LVT was unconvincing, largely because of the minimal impacts on development. They cite surveys that found respondents reporting LVT had little discernible impact on development decisions. However, the authors suggest that this 'neutrality', or absence of impact, is precisely LVT's strength, and in line with standard economic theory. The very appeal of LVT is that it can raise revenue without affecting decision-making. Thus LVT should not, and did not, in itself hasten development. Instead, the value of LVT is cited as a financing option that avoids the distortions carried by alternatives.