Gonna explain why you're wrong on each point, in order:

>How would it turn the park into a swamp? Seems like they largely wanted to turn that shitty old quarry into something useful.

Nah man, if you looked at the development plan you'd know that instead of having to create a detention area for storm drainage, the dude just has to put a pipe under the street sending storm drainage INTO THE PARK. The area is already prone to flooding, there are signs about it up all around in the area. This is part of what people are pissed about, the dude is going to replace a bunch of area that currently absorbs water with a concrete funnel that sends that drainage into the park.

>We can fix high housing prices by building apartment complexes and bring business to the area with other businesses. Just look at the other new apartments.

This is supply-side trickle-down bullshit that is not accurate to real life. More corporate-owned boutique apartments for rich kids will not somehow create the affordable housing we need.

Yes, a development in that spot would bring more money to the area. We don't have to give a developer a bunch of tax breaks, and permission to ignore a bunch of regulations that keep the park from being swampified to get a development there. The city and the developer just thought they'd be able to do that without anyone noticing beforehand.

>Ffs it's a bunch of rich people upset that their property values will go down despite it being progress for the city's growth.

Ffs it's a wealthy developer who is mad that the mayor told him he could fuck the park but the town isn't letting him.