Not that I disagree with your sentiment but the comment you're responding to observes that water lines --- the extra infrastructure beyond roads not included in the article's estimate but sort of implied as being significant --- are generally paid for by user fees, not property taxes.
I think this varies widely so any generalization needs many caveats… but I don’t think you can assume that. What I’ve usually seen is that water service, ie the cost of filtration and sewage treatment and maintaining pumps, is paid by user fees. Water infrastructure - the actual pipes - are usually considered capital projects and maintained out of different funds. But again the details vary on a subdivision by subdivision level not to mention state to state.
Water service maintenance is often a different kind of pyramid scheme. In my area, for example, the user fees don't even remotely cover the maintenances, so the utility district relies very heavily on new service surcharges on new construction. These fees are completely outrageous, a minimum of $6000 for a tiny efficiency apartment less than 50 square meters. This obviously raises the prices of new construction. It also has the unfortunate result that the utility district budget waxes and wanes with the local construction market, and is subject to the whims of every local zoning board, so one town that never permits new construction still enjoys the flow of funds from the charges collected in other cities that do build.
