Things do evolve, but in a liberal democratic/capitalist economy, governments can't simply steamroll private ownership. Zoning can change but existing, legal land use remains 'grandfathered' (that's probably an unacceptable term now). Reexamine all you want, but a private landowner can't be forced out to make way for another private landowner, simply on the basis that the new owner offers more density or some other 'higher and best use'. Levels of government have the legal authority to expropriate land - at fair market value - but only for public works, like transit, not some aspirational 'greater good'.
The way I understand it, the airport land is owned by various levels of government, and the Island residential properties by the city. They are collectively free to try and tear it all down tomorrow, but I suggest the taxpayers would not be happy with the litigation costs.
You raised the sugar refinery. Private land. Does LaFarge still have property in the Portlands? Private land. If some developer wants it that badly, they are free to try and buy them. Creating an environment that is actively unfriendly to industry is not a good look for any city.
Yes, "business folk" do have more say than downtown kids; the kids don't own anything and don't get to vote. That's the fun part of parenting. Downtown parents get to advocate for their downtown kids. You want you government to start kicking businesses and residents to the curb because their presence doesn't fit your vision for the future - go nuts and get active; but there are costs and unintended consequences. Maybe some day, somebody will argue the presence of yourself or your employer doesn't fit.
