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.
Always.
I don't have any stake in MA housing developments (and based on the strength with which you voice your concerns I don't think I would invest in any right now!) But, I have always had a soft spot for those who are willing to risk their own money in the pursuit of greater wealth, it must be my inner capitalist.
The unemployment lines will always contain an insolvent developer who gambled and lost. It's not a career that guarantees security. However, the opportunity for substantial profit will always keep the field well stocked.