A Lockean limit would improve land prices

It should not have been possible to become the owner of an excess of land. Individuals should not be allowed to own an excess of land.

It should be against the law (and is aggressive) to violate the Lockean proviso. It is a crime to have allowed such an acquisition to (have) take(n) place, and a crime to have become the owner of an excess of land. The land has been wrongfully acquired. We should not have the right to buy so much land that our ownership adversely influences other people, beyond what they might reasonably expect. It should not have been possible to get so much land and reparations are justified in the form of 'forcing' people to sell (some of) their land. It is justified to force people to sell their land because a crime has been committed in its acquisition. If a crime has been committed then reparations are justified, assuming this will improve the existing environment.

It would improve the environment to impose a Lockean ceiling on the ownership of land. Owning an excess of land means that a crime has been committed in the past and it would be better if no one is allowed to keep such an extent of property, specifically land.

The poor cannot get enough land because of the lack of an upper limit. A Lockean limit would make it easier for the poor to get land at a reasonable price; it would improve land prices.