Oil companies sell oil and manipulate national policy to promote its use. Consumers buy it and support policy to promote its use. There’s at least a bit of room for personal responsibility there.

I don’t believe there are any explicit rules against redundancy in laws.

That’s valid.

I do think it’s reasonable to have an interest in what kind of development is approved and funded. I wouldn’t support developers who wanted to build McMansions, and luxury condos are less appealing than affordable housing. I expect there could be some extreme, unrealistic case in which you too might oppose a specific development, even if it was high density.

Aesthetic appeal (and yes, NIMBYism) is what kept a lot of small cities in North America, including mine, from being replaced by strip malls.

Of course, this line of reasoning could be continued to oppose anything and everything.

Pointing out that the proposed development would be out of place does not make you a hypocrite. Maybe you and any like-minded neighbors can explain your viewpoint, emphasizing that you would be happy with a smaller apartment building.

It may be that in a few decades, such structures will not look so out of place in your neighborhood. Developers seem to think there’s a demand. You live in a desirable location.

I can commiserate. I’m in a similar area, with a mix of single family homes, duplexes, and small apartments, a few blocks from a walkable downtown. I don’t think a 6 story building would be aesthetically pleasing next to the 2-3 story structures near me.

With that said, I emailed my representatives, and hope to attend the city meeting in support of a new zoning plan allowing for more apartments and businesses, without parking minimums in my neighborhood.