Excellent. I think we're not so far apart, then. I look forward to the series as I find this issue endlessly fascinating, not least because local is where the action is and more ought to be (not national). And on this, I think we largely agree. If we can each try our 'utopian' experiments locally, we can attract more community members in peaceful competition. (Hurray decentralization!)
Exactly!!! Cities should be able to earn a profit and use money and land for the benefit of those who live there! And cities should be the richest entity, followed by states, and then the fed. In other words, the area closest to our lives should have the most money and power over our lives (and where our vote matters most) and the area furthest away should have the least money and power (and where our vote matters least!).
Utopia should happen locally, and in many varieties!
I will only add that I think there is a broader concept: ensuring the community benefits from progress, and this means that when a place gets nicer and land/location becomes more desirable, that value (whether it be dollars or metaphorical) be returned to the community that made that place valuable. Elle's first installment will speak directly to this point, in a valuable way.
I don't think there is one avenue toward that vision. Land value taxes are one vision, land-leasing is another, and there are likely other ways to think about this issue. It will need to be balanced against any concerns of consolidating power -- consolidated power is always prone to abuse. Government is not unique to this concern; wealth inequality matters as money is power.