I think the nuance is that is doesn't produce what it's worth - it's that it's value to society is more than what people are willing to pay for it (and also more than what it costs to produce).

Of course there will be exceptions to the rule, but these dynamics seem pretty strong.

Absolutely.

And as someone who’s seen some condo boards, I can tell you that when presented with “we all need to pay a small amount of money now to avoid a big bill later” the response will generally be “no way!”

It’s a tragedy of the commons issue, mixed with people who don’t agree on the value of it in the first place.

Sure, but the community has to somehow decide to pay the people doing that good thing. There are a lot of projects that would likely be a net benefit not being paid for.

Externalities, coordination failure...

It's simultaneously worth vastly more to the community as a whole than the cost of producing it, and yet, to any single individual, the marginal benefit of having it is not enough to justify paying for it.

The naïve solution might be to collectively subsidize it, but then that creates its own moral hazards and perverse incentives.

...It's a bit scary how much of democracy relies on institutions that were only able to form because we lucked into social conditions making them sustainable.