what exists in most cities are interest coalitions in which pro-growth business elites generally dominate because they control access to goals that most elected officials seek, such elites exercise *systemic* power over city government, doesn't have to be/isn't always overt, 'entrepreneurial/corporate' local regimes are primarily interested in downtown development policies, reorienting city priorities toward serving neighborhoods and/or low-income residents beyond that which is cosmetic/symbolic is next to impossible...
there are local regimes - including some considered to be 'progressive' - in which business is not the *unchallenged* dominant interest, places with strong tradition of citizen activism, where neighborhood and community orgs have some influence (although absence of 'unitary interest' can pit such groups against one another), in such instances, some measure of service expansion and redistributive policymaking can occur, including 'linkage' programs requiring large developers to contribute to trust funds used for housing and job-training, curbs on conversion of apartments into condos, and earmarking some percentage of space in new developments for low/moderate income housing...
kind of situation that tends to get attention is when local residents successfully block construction of a project that city's business leaders wanted, of course, this may well happen - when it does - in relatively affluent communities, people who may regard growth as threat to their quality of life...
'contested terrain' (however skewed the contest) understanding is preferable to alternatives - enterpreneurial/corporate regime as described above, 'global capital' theory in which local situation is hopeless, harvey molotch's 'growth machine' approach (which, i have to admit, is pretty compelling much of the time) in which local land-based elite dominates, 'unitary interest' position asserting that everybody benefits from economic growth, old-style pluralism, which is naive, at best... mh