I'm asking for a reason to vote yes that wouldn't also work to argue for developing the park. I'm asking the question because I think we should all be able to agree that we don't want to convert our public parks into apartment buildings, but the arguments I'm seeing to vote yes are arguments that you could also use to argue that we should convert public parks into apartment buildings.

Like, if the argument is affordable housing, and we need these apartments to increase the amount of affordable housing (directly or indirectly), then hell, why not develop the park into affordable housing or apartment buildings as well?

If building the apartments is going to impact homelessness so much that we are overlooking the issues with the development, then why not just develop the park as well?? If we need the housing that badly then it would really help to develop the park and the surrounding area into these apartment buildings. "Or do you not care about the problem of homelessness and care so much more about having a nice stroll??"

If the argument is about NIMBYs, then I can basically say the same thing. "Why are we so committed to preserving the scenic views of rich old people living around this park??"