Are there any restrictions which don't 'harm the economy'? Why can't I interpret the analysis to mean the population of the city is willing to pay an extra (ma

Are there any restrictions which don't 'harm the economy'? Why can't I interpret the analysis to mean the population of the city is willing to pay an extra (made up number of) $300/month per capita in order to preserve the current system? > New housing supply benefits the entire city, even if that new supply takes the form of luxury condos. Tenant activists have regularly objected to new luxury developments as just another sign of gentrification. But even if that housing is intended for high-income tech workers, it will take some pressure off the existing units that those tech workers have occupied at the expense of middle- and lower-income residents. In effect, this means that affordable housing advocates who want to block new high-end developments are simply making the city more expensive. Let's consider this more closely. Would a restriction on luxury condos harm the economy, using the same analysis factors? I assume the answer is yes. Would a restriction on luxury condos, but increasing the number of apartments, make the city more affordable? I assume the answer is yes. If both are yes, then it means that actions to make the city more affordable can end up harming the economy. Which then means that 'simply making the city more expensive' cannot be used by itself to justify having luxury apartments. If one or both is 'no', why?