Sounds like there's plenty of stuff to blame besides low-income people wanting a place to live.

Yes, but getting more units in a building that won't be build doesn't help said low income residents.

This is a moral argument that does not fit the facts we know, and hence can't have a morally good outcome.

I was not trying to make a moral argument, but an observation that many seem ready to believe any statement by the powerful no matter how dodgy, while the powerless are assiduously made invisible.

I don't see how the people that dictated terms to the point where the project was unprofitable is powerless.

I also question if the people fighting for this outcome are the same low income residents affected, because I have a hard time believing actual low income residents in line for the units would prefer an outcome where no units gets build in order to make a moral point.

Why is it morally good to make an idealistic stand that cause no units to be build? To me that seems factually wrong.

OP told an unsourced story about a supposed SF housing project cancelled because of supposed demands for low-income units. You appear to have uncritically accepted this story as true, to the point where you are ranting about the injustice and immorality of those pesky poor people demanding an affordable place to live. You are demonstrating my observation that many people are inclined to accept the viewpoints and arguments of the rich and powerful without question or examination.

Even if such a development existed, I would not take the word of the builders that it was annoying poor people that doomed it, without taking a closer look all the things that can cause such a project to fail, including the competing actions of other greedy rich people.

I’ve seen this happen countless times in SF. It is a pattern to do this here. It is unproductive and hurts everyone except those owning existing housing due to increasing prices caused by artificially restricted supply.

Win-win scenarios are possible more often than one might think.