The City Council is scheduled to vote Sept. 17 on whether to approve 80 Flatbush, a large development proposed for Downtown Brooklyn. For me, the choice is stark: A yes will win my neighborhood more than 900 new homes (200 affordable!), two schools and office space at zero cost to the taxpayer. A no would deny us this greatly needed infrastructure.

Unfortunately the local councilman, Stephen Levin, has threatened to spike the project in its entirety unless the developers agree to decrease its scale significantly. He should reconsider his opposition, which is against the interests of both his constituents and the city as a whole.

Support is nearly universal for the project's new schools—our current ones are dreadfully crowded and out-of-date. But the homes, both market-rate and affordable, are no less necessary. With a vacancy rate of just 3.6%, New York City is facing a housing emergency. The shortage of homes pushes rents ever higher, culminating in historic levels of displacement and homelessness.

Renters in my neighborhood, where the vacancy rate is 1.7%, are no strangers to this citywide issue. We desperately need more homes.

The development wouldn't just provide needed homes to an underbuilt neighborhood, but it would also situate them in an ideal location. No site could be better for a large, multifaceted development. It's a two-minute walk to the major transit hub of Atlantic Terminal and the burgeoning office district of Downtown Brooklyn.

It's no wonder the high-opportunity neighborhood boasts a median income of more than $95,000, nearly double the citywide figure. More people should be allowed to live here.

Opponents of this project should ask themselves a simple question: If this is not a good place to build lots of homes, what is?

Levin's company in opposing 80 Flatbush is telling. Wealthy homeowners in Boerum Hill and Fort Greene have come out in force against the project. A sampling of their arguments: Street parking would be harder to find. The buildings would cast shadows. The area would look different. Construction is annoying.

These points are not categorically wrong but are often exaggerated. As an advocate for more housing across the city, I have seen them weaponized in wealthy neighborhoods from Boerum Hill to the Upper East Side. A small number of hyperlocal concerns have been given far more time and attention than the fate of renters, who make up a majority of these neighborhoods (not to mention the entire city).

Research has shown that individuals who oppose developments at public comment proceedings in wealthy neighborhoods are disproportionately rich, white and homeowners. While they have a right to express their opinion, it should not be the only one considered, especially when the same housing scarcity that raises rents also increases their property values.

In fact, wealthy communities weighing land-use decisions regularly ignore certain perspectives, especially those from other neighborhoods. But their failure to allow development has terrible consequences for poorer, gentrifying neighborhoods. The case of 80 Flatbush is illustrative. If the demand for housing is not met in Downtown Brooklyn, it will not magically go away—it will move to poorer neighborhoods such as Crown Heights and Bedford-Stuyvesant, causing further displacement.

Between 2010 and 2016, the white population of Bedford-Stuyvesant and Crown Heights exploded by nearly 100% while the black population dropped by 8%. Over the same period, Fort Greene, Dumbo, Vinegar Hill, Boerum Hill and Downtown Brooklyn collectively saw a slight increase in their black population despite a 36% increase in white residents.

Downtown Brooklyn is well positioned to absorb new residents with little risk of displacing existing tenants. The 700 market-rate homes of 80 Flatbush would protect 700 other households from being outbid for their homes. But the perspectives of these households will always be ignored if the only voices that matter in land use are those from a single council district, as is the tradition in this city.

Other aspects of the process unfairly elevate the opinions of local homeowners even more. In this case, area civic and preservation groups have the councilman's ear. Their established relationship with local politicians has created a generational hierarchy, allowing this landed gentry to use time accrued in the neighborhood as political currency in service of their narrow ends.

And so Levin and his team have met with only the usual self-interested suspects, such as the Boerum Hill Association, and have refused to meet with local renters—like me—who are more representative of the district. Similarly feedback from vulnerable tenants outside the district who would bear the brunt of the displaced demand has also been ignored.

An organization I've joined, Open New York, refuses to let these privileged voices dominate the conversation any longer. I live on the border of Downtown Brooklyn and Fort Greene, and I hope to give a voice to all the residents and prospective residents of the neighborhood that support development of 80 Flatbush's scale. Levin and other local politicians need to hear our side of the story.

Our message is simple. Homes, schools, jobs and opportunities are far more important than parking, traffic, neighborhood character and property values. Our housing market is regional, so the approval process should reflect a holistic view. Above all, we reject the politics of no, which fights change and newcomers while exalting the desire to keep things the way they are. A politics of yes would embrace the dynamism of our city and create opportunity for all.

Open New York would not advocate for a development that imposes costs on a community without creating massive public benefits. We are not funded by developers or shadowy business interests. We are a volunteer group of renters who want wealthy neighborhoods to do their part in solving the housing crisis.

In the case of 80 Flatbush, the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. We hope that Councilman Levin will listen to renters and ultimately give 80 Flatbush, as proposed, the "yes" it deserves.

Spencer Heckwolf is a resident of Fort Greene and a member of Open New York, an independent, pro-housing advocacy group.