Having the developer pay for the imposed costs is within your reach through zoning laws that require the same. If this cannot be accomplished in a cost effective manner, the developer will be forced to abandon the project and those that would have bought new the new homes are just "out-of-luck."
On the other hand, aren't you fortunate that those who arrived before you didn't feel the same way about you.
Well, yes. Of course, the developer has a substantial financial stake in opposing that sort of law. The ensuing battle pits a few average citizens against a large developer who can afford to make campaign contributions to the right people, and who can afford to have folks working full-time to get the development approved without such changes. It's generally very difficult to beat the developers at this game.
If this cannot be accomplished in a cost effective manner, the developer will be forced to abandon the project and those that would have bought new the new homes are just "out-of-luck."
Either that, or the developers build anyway, under the assumption that the taxpayers will pick up the difference.
Either way, the taxpayers generally end up footing part of the bill.
The imposed costs and the manifest difficulty of fighting the developers head to head, explain the popularity of the tactics used in the Massachusetts case that started this thread. It's not right, but it's understandable.
My original point was simply that there are two sides to the issue: there are wrong reasons to oppose development, but also some legitimate ones.