I'm in a state without anything like Prop 13. If someone wants to build some development nearby which drives up demand for land and housing in my area, and so drives up property values, and so drives up my property taxes then I've got an incentive to oppose that development.
If we had something like Prop 13 so I didn't have to worry about that development driving up my property taxes wouldn't I then have less incentive to oppose the development?
There is a significant amount of just plain NIMBYism, but I think some of the resistance is deserved because people know the developers just want to get in, sell the units, and get out leaving everyone else to deal with all the effects of way more people using the same infrastructure.
Now, if the developers are willing to pay for the infrastructure improvements to handle all the people, that's great, but I haven't seen that happen often, although it admittedly does happen.
We don’t need developers to pay for infrastructure - we have owners of the new building paying property taxes. That’s what funds city infrastructure. Prop 13 is what limits those revenues, it shouldn’t be on the developers back.
My feeling is it's better to have something paid for up front than hope it'll be paid for later.
We could repeal prop 13 and increase property taxes, but there's nothing requiring that increase in revenue be spent on improving the infrastructure related to the new development. Local government could spend it on something else.
There's also Mello-Roos for the specific improvements that need to be made, but that hurts demand for new housing because it's another cost tacked on, which developers don't like.
The fact of the matter is, as we build more housing, we also need to build more infrastructure to support more people. Developers don't want to do this, but requiring them to do it insures it gets done.
