Even post-war treaties often demand a 99-year lease rather than the full transfer of ownership.

With an extended term lease, of the land, the private developer can be obliged to cover the higher property taxes resulting from the higher use and the higher value of the improvements. The buildings will surely be depreciated by 20, 50, and certainly by the 99th year.

The party that is compelled to relinquish use of the land itself, even if temporarily, retains the long term benefit of the upzoning. The upzoning is usually wrapped up as a packaged thing in some development proposals.

This way we would cut out the incentive of well connected developers from obtaining the personal benefit of years of restricted development rights (artificially restricting value, in the "public interest") where they can then uniquely be given the public go ahead to do more than the previous owner was allowed to do, or could afford to do.

I do not see the need to fully remove the property right forever rather than temporarily. The public interest and the authority of the elected local folks is just short term anyway, isn't it?

The artificial restriction of development rights is at the heart of lots of land use decision making, particularly with consideration of things like Urban Reserves. The issue is just the delay of development until a future date. The temporary restriction clearly lowers the measure of what constitutes "just compensation."