Cities could procure significant funds by assessing developers for long term maintenance costs. For example, it should be possible to estimate how many new housing units would require an additional fire station and the cost to build it. Then prorate that cost to each house. Same applies to libraries, parks, court houses and so on. Developers would tack the additional assessment on to the price of the house and that in turn might slow demand and growth.
Corruption is most definitely a factor, maybe not universal, but I have seen it. In my city a developer got approval for the first stage of new houses, about 130, and the county planning agency gave approval for the second stage conditional upon the developer building a bridge to allevate traffic. After the first stage was complete the county commissioners voted to pick up the cost of the bridge and the only explanation was the developer did not have the funds and the commissioners thought the second stage housing would be be an economic benefit to the community.
Then I was not clear. The prorated cost should be added to the fees charged to the developer. Developers would likely tack that onto the price of the house, so not a tax, but a develop fee.
Isn't that exactly the same root cause of why the article asserts American cities can't keep up with infrastructure upkeep? Cities accepting up front windfalls regardless of whatever long term costs that come with it?
Corruption is most definitely a factor, maybe not universal, but I have seen it. In my city a developer got approval for the first stage of new houses, about 130, and the county planning agency gave approval for the second stage conditional upon the developer building a bridge to allevate traffic. After the first stage was complete the county commissioners voted to pick up the cost of the bridge and the only explanation was the developer did not have the funds and the commissioners thought the second stage housing would be be an economic benefit to the community.