The flip side of this is that developers don’t have a good record. Cheap, badly done developments and a history of buying, then revealing their true plans. “Oh, it turned out to be structurally unstable, so we have to demolish”.
Most cities with any history to speak of preserve a few areas built out with edifices that are especially beautiful, and / or historical significance.
I would rather my city demolish and rebuild a slums district, even if that district used to be a city's landmark. Unless such a place can sustain itself as a museum and a tourist attraction, I think the life conditions of the current population are more important than the desire to have a living memory of everything.
Preventing people from being able to afford a place to live so entrenched interests can accrue hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment appreciation is not a “win”.
Even if you think that the interests of long term “locals” should be privileged (which I disagree with, all men are created equal yada yada), rising property prices don’t benefit all locals, just “local property owners”, as you’ve observed. Local renters and even the kids of local homeowners who eventually want to enter the property market themselves are hurt by constrained supply.