The owners of Uptown Apartments are leaning toward not improving the apartment complex; they believe that the increased rents they could charge for improved apartments would not cover the costs of the improvements.
Opposing Support
They [the owners of Uptown Apartments] do not believe that the increased rents they could charge for improved apartments would not cover the costs of the improvements.
Opposing Point
The owners of Uptown Apartments are leaning toward not improving the apartment complex.
Evidence
The improvements would make the surrounding housing, which they also own, more valuable and rentable for higher rents.
Conclusion
So the owners should make the improvements.
Evaluate
This argument boils down to whether a certain action (improving the apartments) is a Net Gain. The author is arguing that the owners should make the apartments, so she thinks this action will yield a net positive. And she is rebutting the owners, who think it will be a Net Loss (the cost of the improvements > the increase in rent that they could charge).
The author ends up changing the math on their calculation by bringing in another factor that would be affected by improving the apartments: they would also raise the property values and revenue ceiling on other assets owned by the owners of the apartments.
Goal
We would potentially want an argument that has something resembling this structure. Opposing idea: Don't do action A, because upside X doesn't offset downside Y. Author's Conclusion: You should do action A. Author's Evidence: Action A would also have upside Z
The argument may even care that upside Z (raising the values / rental potential of the surrounding housing) isn't directly affected by action A, but seems to be indirectly affected by action A.