This had been especially obvious because historically low interest rates have enabled a lot of asset appreciation, with real estate being one example. High real estate prices lead to high property taxes, which makes the difference in taxes paid much more obvious.
NIMBYism also plays a part, but I think people routinely overlook that developers often don't improve local facilities in line with local housing projects, which can lead to all kinds of awfulness. That new 1000 unit apartment complex also needs 1000+ parking spaces, along with other improvements in local infrastructure in proportion to the increase in population, but a developer won't care about that unless someone forces them to care.
2. Why should it be the developers jobs to build out new infrastructure that isn't directly needed by their building. It's their job to build housing which brings people, those people bring taxes and those taxes pay for upgrades to infrastructure.
In terms of who should improve infrastructure, it doesn't really matter who does it, but I think either local government or the developer should be required to do it and not be allowed to let things slide. I focus on the developer because they're the first in the process, but it doesn't matter if instead the city requires the developer to build in the infrastructure improvement costs and does it themselves. The only position I have is that it should get done.
Btw what infrastructure are you talking about? Water, electrics, roads or sewage I'm guessing.
I guess they could be $15k/year, but I've never seen an example that high. My mom lives in Yucca Valley and has two or three Mello Roos items (water district, local community college, and something else), and I think maybe pays about $600 total for them.
https://playavistaexperts.com/buying-selling-resources/mello...
It's a ton off money either way, although I guess not surprising in Playa del Rey.
This tweet highlights some of the insaneness: https://twitter.com/nextdoorsv/status/1265719788875272192
Someone pays $806 per year, living next to someone who pays $27,732 per year.
https://twitter.com/alfred_twu/status/1327821019931787264?s=...
Translation: The people who live there won't vote for a thing they don't want.
Because of it's size and market influence, California laws can effect the rest of the country, should the rest of the country vote in California elections?
The people who _choose_ to sit in the traffic are getting what they signed up for. I could be that person and I choose not to be in no small part to that situation.
You can see a detailed study of it here: https://www.buildzoom.com/blog/cities-expansion-slowing
Palo Alto. Someone pays $1081 per year living adjacent to someone who pays $24K per year.
This is patently false. Property taxes can and do raise 2%/year.
California does need to build new housing.