Well, that's exactly my point, of course. That's why we need to hear all voices. No one can define "better" to please everyone but we certainly have seen people shift their idea of "better" after feedback and changes. The Nye's proposal is a perfect example. People on this very board have come to like the reduced-height development. Not everyone loves it but overall the neighborhood "opposition" seems to have resulted in a win-win-win.Minimum lot size, setbacks, FAR, parking minimums, height limitations, etc really DO limit this type of construction on a lot or two in anything below R4 in our city. Sure, you can get variances or CUPs. But *most* would-be developers maybe don't have the savvy to do that, or would rather not tie up potential investment capital in something as risky or litigious as this (which is where opposition is the problem, not just people complaining at the Planning Commission or in Strib comment sections, but actively filing appeals and delaying projects), and would maybe prefer to just park it somewhere else.
And, as to public opposition/feedback. "Differing opinions make projects better." I don't know you can make the case this is always true, or true to everyone. "Better" is extremely subjective. What's good for the auto-oriented business/landlord is bad for pedestrians. Who is "right"?
You make a good point in the first paragraph. Opening up the zoning a bit would tend to reduce the litigation risk of projects, right? It seems like modernizing the zoning code could kill two birds.