First of all most of the “luxury” developments you are referring to are subject to the 20% affordability quota. So they are not exclusively for tenants who can afford higher rents.
More importantly you evade the core question ; why is 100% “luxury” housing “bad” for the neighborhood? If you concede that the problem is fundamentally one of demand; then any supply should be welcomed.
Affordability is relative; the person who is paying 2200/ month to live in new development in Newark is doing so because they can’t afford the 4000 a comparable apt would cost in Manhattan. Based on your logic, these individuals are shit out of luck. These are not the children of millionaires or billionaires mind you; the children of oligarchs wouldn’t be caught dead living in Newark!
I know some of these new transplants personally; they are by enlarge ordinarily Americans who most likely took out large student loans to go to collage and get a degree that enabled them to get god paying jobs in this city. I know this because I am friends with some of them.
You would be fine is
Developer contend that at prevailing costs, they cannot build and rents out units and a price point that is affordable to local residents. If that is not true, then we would see a proliferation of developers building affordable units. In the time I have been here, I haven’t seen many “all affordable” project; the one that get launched are substantially subsidized by the taxpayers. Essentially proving the developers right.
The 20% affordable unit quote does the same thing in higher end developments; creating affordable units that are subsidized by the tax payer. So you are fine with heavily subsidizeqpwhy oppose the luxury developments?