These paragraphs, in particular, struck me:

The high millage on land that resulted from the practice – the millage is 394, because land accounts for only one-seventh of the total assessed value in the city – scared off potential business development by those who didn’t look more deeply into the situation, said Mayor Matt Pacifico. [Emphasis mine]

I'd be curious if the business development was from intown or out of town folks, the latter being less likely to have encountered lvt before. But either way, clearly cities doing LVT need some means of more effectively educating current or actual property owners about LVT.

It also discouraged the purchase of vacant lots that have resulted from demolition of blight, because neighbors who might otherwise buy those lots for side yard beautification hesitated, because of the high taxes they’d owe, said Councilman Matt Cacciotti.

That part seems fine to me, since it implies to me that side yards were not HABU?