A city should set its property and income taxes such that it can (a) maintain parks and (b) maintain intersections without requiring ransom from new developers. Because what happens to the parks and intersections when no new developers want to come? Also, "I just invented a one-off tax you'll need to pay" is some corrupt (or at least corruptible) government.
It’s not a park to be maintained. It’s a formerly radioactive wasteland.
"I just invented a one-off tax you'll need to pay"
It’s not a one-off tax. It’s codified, and every developer gets to choose if it wants to make these payments or not. If the developer doesn’t want to pay, then it is welcome to build within the zoning established a half century ago, and it won’t even be subject to Plan Commission review. If the developer wants an extra 30 stories beyond the current zoning, then it can pay for that by contributing to the community that it is going to impact with increased traffic, infrastructure, and demand for services.
I think it's a difference in philosophy.
Again, I can't speak about SFO, because my experience in this space is mostly Chicago.
Your assertion seems to be that the developers "take the hit" as if the development/building is an island unto itself. The city's view is that the development/building is part of a community and should contribute to the community and integrate with it.
That's why in Chicago it is very common for a new building to fix up the neighborhood it's in, as part of the privilege of locating in Chicago.
400 North Lake Shore, for example, is required to build out DuSable Park. Most other buildings have to replace all the traffic signals and crosswalks for three or four or five blocks around.
In addition, if the developer wants extra height, that can be purchased in exchange for contributions to the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund, or a fund to preserve historic buildings.
Again, it's a difference in philosophy. "Us vs them," versus becoming a contributing part of the neighborhood community.