Huh? The impoverished residents of the estate voted to have it "destroyed" (from which they would personally gain) but it was rich elites that blocked it because it's a vote winner in the wider community to be viewed as anti-development
It's an odd situation, but I can see where the sentiment comes from. Poorer communities are usually the target of redevelopment, frequently with promises on how things will improve, only to discover that the promises were hollow down the road. In a case like this, where there is supposed to be an incredibly large change in the demographic of the community, I can understand how some would interpret the small increase in social housing as being a hollow promise.