I completely agree that development creates negative externalities which are legitimate complaints for neighbors. However, restrictions on development create a regressive tax in the form of high rents, which is, as the article describes, distributed broadly. What's needed is some sort of cost-benefit balance between the two.

For example, I rent a 400 sq foot apartment in SF for $3k. The operating and capital cost of the physical apartment is probably on the order of $1000 (I have rented similar places in Montreal, which has ample housing, for <$1000). That means that the other $2000, or about 2/3 of my rent, is the result of apartment scarcity caused by development restrictions. If new development is more costly, we could imagine my rent would be $1500 at market equilibrium if there were no barriers to development and the city was covered in high rises from bay to ocean, so I am effectively paying $1500/mo for restrictions on development.

Those restrictions have value in the form of reducing community impacts, so the question becomes, should the community as a whole pay a 100% "tax" on its rents to avoid additional development? The policy also closes off market rate housing in the city to any who can't afford the rents, which could be a feature or a bug depending on your outlook.

I believe there is a goldilocks regime between the two extremes that we should strive for, but our current system doesn't provide a mechanism for us as a society to make a balanced cost/benefit tradeoff.