Perhaps it might help to view this from the perspective of the local governments. Many of their ways to have budgets to meet the expanding local needs are bounded by things like California's prop 13, and supermajority requirements on tax increases. "Fees" for subsets of the population are a way to divide and conquer their funding issues.
A vacant parcel fee accomplishes a few things, besides annoying non-local vacant parcel owners, it brings in some additional revenue, and it incentivizes vacant parcel owners to take actions (build, occupy, etc.) that add either add to the tax base by higher property tax values, or by having more local spending that indirectly puts money in to the local economy.
Finally, like the hotel occupancy fees, airport fees, and car rental fees, these fees tend not to impact most voters, either because they don't own a parcel of vacant land, or they aren't local voters, or both. That makes the general political friction low.
I think that there are lots of obscure fees that ding certain subsets of the population. For my sanity, I try to bottom line the whole thing. At some level, government needs some amount of money to maintain a civil society, after that, I think that we are really just discussing what kinds of spending is or isn't appropriate, or needed, from our own perspectives. One advantage to local governments is that the spending can be more closely tied to local needs, and local ways of life and culture. We pay a variety of local fees and bonds that don't benefit us directly, e.g. bonds for schools that our kids would not be allowed to attend, etc., but I know that it helps our community, and I happen to think that is a good thing. Others disagree, and I do understand their reasoning, for the most part.
I think that compromise is never about getting what you want, but it is quite preferable to not having civil society. I once experienced two local groups literally standing on either side of a stream, and hurling rocks and boulders at each other to settle a difference between an individual in each group. Lots of injuries resulted, and I was never clear on whether the outcome was "settled". To me, it seemed on the level of "cutting your nose off to spite your face", but I think that if you look around the world, there are lots of places that have perspectives that old perceived injustices are still important, and worth dying for.
Amusing (interesting?) side story about local responses to local needs. I lived for a time in a place where marijuana was legal. There was a local person who was, well erratic, perhaps crazy in some way. Certainly, I never saw him manage to care for himself, or do any local labor. When they saw him coming towards them muttering and yelling wildly, the local response was to fire up a hash pipe and hand it to him. He hit the pipe, mellowed out, got fed, and wandered on. This was in the same area with the rock throwing incident. No real local government, and the rule of outside law was basically zero. E.g. During a multiday election (local, then state, then national polling days), the poll workers were hassled by locals on the first day, resulting in the deployment of the army with shoot on sight orders. Gave me perspective on "the strong arm of the law"...
Personally, I happily pay taxes because I have lived through some of the alternatives, and I did not like the alternatives.
Your mileage will vary!
All the best,
Peter
