Pretty standard actually. Affordable housing rarely has a definition or measurable success criteria, but if something gets built it isn't going to be built where their constituents or they themselves live. Similar to how superficially progressive people are all for drug liberalization or a less heavy-handed approach to crime, as long as it has zero impact on their lives.

These same people are ostensibly liberal, "we're all for people riding bikes, or getting a stupid little condo, whatever you kids like to do for fun" they say, but in practice will do anything in their power to prevent any impediment to their car commute, even if their fear is at-best specious.

Same thing in Toronto. In Vancouver Canada we're a fair bit better about the bike lane thing, though it's still fragile, but in the affordable housing issue they actually just subsidized the huge home owners that already owned land, so a majority of new units that have come on the market are in their basements or backyard and can't be owned, furthering a class divide. They marginally upzoned, but now a duplex or small townhouse is over a million at the low end. There isn't an incentive to make housing less expensive except the vague sense that the municipal/regional economy will eventually collapse on someone else's watch.

No, there should be fewer "bike lanes" in the US. Bike lanes are silly unless they are separate "roads" as in the Netherlands. There is absolutely zero chance of this happening in the US. Just stop with the pretense and stop giving cyclists a false sense of security. I rode a bike all over Los Angeles as a teen before the bike lane fantasies took hold. That takes a different set of survival skills and attitude than the suicidal bike lane followers of today. What we do now is just killing cyclists.