Yes, if the market rental value of the location is more than the UIE amount multiplied by the number of citizens residing there. Just as a rough guess, I would estimate that a high single-digit percent of citizens would elect to use no more location value than their UIEs: the unemployable, poor families with young children, etc. At most a small fraction of 1% would choose to use land no one else was willing to pay to use, but no doubt there would be a few aspiring hermits. The difference is that the payments for land would be made to the government and community in return for the benefits they provide to the exclusive tenure holder, not to a privileged private parasite in return for nothing. So land users (i.e., everyone) would only have to pay for government once instead of twice. No, the difference from the current system is that the proposed system would consist of free people buying and selling through voluntary, market-based, beneficiary-pay, value-for-value transactions in a free market, not the privileged, parasitic owners of other people's rights to liberty buying and selling them in a slave market. And yes, "cool" would be the very faintest praise one could honestly apply to it.