Wouldn't Georgism actually reduce NIMBYism?

A common critique of Georgism is that it could encourage NIMBYism, since by stopping local development, NIMBYs would be able to keep their land taxes low.

However, one of the largest reasons for NIMBYism is that people want to protect their property values. So in theory, it seems like the type of developments that NIMBYs oppose would actually reduce their land values. And thus, they would be more amicable to local development.

After all, it's not like improvements magically make local land more valuable. They only increase land values if they make local property more desirable, and an improvement which makes land less desirable should do the opposite. Assuming that land values were being assessed accurately.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like a high LVT--in theory--would make NIMBYism less appealing.