This. There are actually 3 sets of "developers" that barely overlap:

1) Big national homebuilders. They do suburban subdivisions, full stop.

2) Mid- to high-rise urban developers: these are mostly local/regional companies.

3) Small-scale infill developers and rehabbers.

(1/2) https://twitter.com/mtsw/status/1311057798562603008

This is important b/c the interests of those groups often don't align, and people who make blanket statements about what policies do or don't serve "developers" often miss that. For example, group #2 in particular benefits from convoluted regs + high barrier to entry. (2/2)

I know I said "2/2" but immediate interest prompted me to elaborate on this. A telling anecdote: when Minneapolis was debating allowing 4plexes citywide (eventually became triplexes) a prominent local developer was quoted outright scoffing at the idea: https://streets.mn/2018/10/16/big-developers-big-business-big-southwest-agree-on-mpls-2040/

This kind of reaction is common—Doran, a Type 2 developer, had no interest in doing Type 3 and said so. Scattered-site, small infill is not his business model. Gives the lie to the notion that Mpls. 2040 was a ploy for well-connected big developers to "bulldoze neighborhoods."

Type 3 are people like @IncDevAlliance champions: work at small scales, build Missing Middle, are often sole proprietors, subcontract locally, often live in & are personally invested in the neighborhoods where they work. They're not The Developers™ in any NIMBY boogeyman sense.