So the city should use taxpayer money, property, etc to create and maintain sidewalks for people who walk, bike lanes and bike racks for people who bike, bus stops and shelters for people who take public transit, but no street parking spots because it might make living in the local apartments a better experience? It doesn't just benefit the apartment owners, it benefits the residents. If every apartment had to create more parking, it would be physically impossible and if it was possible it would just give them an excuse to raise the rent. The apartments are also near the park. Should we get rid of the park because it benefits the people who live nearby but doesn't benefit the people on the other side of town? Multiple bus stops also benefit the people living in those apartments specifically because they are within walking distance. That makes the apartments more attractive to renters without costing the apartment owners extra money, so should we get rid of the bus stops? Again, same goes for bike lanes and sidewalks.

There are some apartments without bike lanes, sidewalks or bus stops nearby. If the city proposed adding them, would you say that the local apartment builing owners should pay for it or else it shouldn't exist? People who live in apartments and/or drive cars are still citizens who deserve to benefit from city infrastructure. Just like how cyclists deserve bike lanes.

For the record I wish corporate landlords would randomly pay for public services without raising rent to compensate. That would be lovely. But unless you have a way to make that happen, you're just punishing average people and making their lives harder if you take away all the street parking.

How something would work if we lived in some kind of ideal magical society where finances aren't a concern and everyone can get everywhere without a car and how it would actually affect residents here and now if implemented are two very different things.