I believe the difference for Potts and Loveday was that no currently affordable housing is needing to be demolished to make way for the new building, whereas this was the case for the Cook Street Village proposal. They argued that the developer should at least provide enough affordable units to replace those that are lost. This proposal doesn't have a net loss in affordable housing. Dubow was not present to vote on the Redfern proposal. Isitt voted both proposals down because of affordability concerns.
The developer is building a rental complex in Esquimalt that more than makes up for the handful of units lost to make way for the CSV project. Why does the housing have to be within the same property as the development? Who is to say the replacement housing will meet the needs of the existing residents? That’s where this pursuit of affordability starts to break down, as politicians view the world through blinders and operate as though every move is linear and every action has a 100% foreseeable outcome.