If you do nothing with the land, you're inherently negatively impacting your neighbors property. First of all, i will end up suing you for allowing the spread of invasive species onto my property. Second, your forest is destroying my fence, sued. Third, if you have so much land you cant even use it, im gunna tell me friends to come squat and then what happens when 10 years later you discover them there? Big war, fun stuff.

Doing absolutely nothing with thousands of acres is how you get a mob at your gate.

"Nothing about wanting to own more land, as long as it is acquired by moral means is bad or oppressive. Your desire to restrict my ability to own property is evil. You literally have no right nor moral justification for saying that I should not own more than I can use or occupy."

It's because nearly all anarchist schools of thought (except "an"caps) understand that the larger is the property that a single person or group claim to own, the harder is keep and use it consistently throughout the time, that's why an abandonment criteria must exist, it's a way to prevent any return of exploitation, privilege and passive income that exists in our current statist system

"Secondly: you still have not produced a morally consistent reason that non-occupatory ownership is wrong. Example: I don't need a car and a scooter, but guess what? I want a scooter to further minimize my commute costs. In your model, this is bad since I can't obviously drive both at once. This is asinine."

Your personal belongings like vehicles fall in the category of possessions (not property land), which have a different dynamic in the anarchist interpretation