I own property in both San Francisco and Cambridge... The former is my home. The latter is a secondary home, for the past 4 years. Cambridge has a much more fortunate economic structure, in that California is saddled with "Prop 13, of 1978".
That was the result of a taxpayer revolt, that led to the setting of a property's tax bill being1% of its sale price.  The initial tax bill goes up 2% a year. Example:
You buy a house for $100,000. Your initial tax bill is, therefore: $1,000 a year. For the second year, it goes up to $1,020.00, and so on... (plus little "add ons".)

In Cambridge,  things are better. They saw the effects of Prop 13, and they liked the basic premise, but saw the starvation of the Cities' coffers.  They wanted to give a huge incentive to folks' becoming "owner occupiers". They succeeded.

Take my condo, for example.  We paid $450,000 for it, in 2007. (In SF it would have resulted in a tax bill of $4,500. per year.  Our tax bill is, now, after four years of increases, still only about $2,200 per year. Cambridge gives us a whopping $200,000 "owner occupier" credit, and a low tax rate on the remainder!!

The Cambridge tax structure then compensates by tacking on a 50% surcharge onto the same "tax rate" we pay...onto any commercial property owner.

The end result is that Cambridge, relative to S.F...is awash in  revenue, on a "per capita" basis, when compared to S.F.

Cambridge is able to spend 50% more per pupil, than S.F..... And so it goes on.