No, Mr. NIMBY, you did not; you alleged that 'costs' occurred, but you cannot enumerate them without admitting that they are not legitimate.
Your 'costs' are the illegitimate use of others property.
Yes, Mr. Poopyhead, I did enumerate them by type.
I named these imposed actual costs: additional traffic, roads, drainage, water supplies, and fire and police coverage.
I also listed these intangibles: added noise, pollution, crowding, and the fact that the developments seem to be designed to encourage a transient, non-neighborly lifestyle.
One would have to be blind or wilfully ignorant to claim that massive new developments do not impose these costs -- they are obvious to all who care to look. I give to you as one actual example, the city of Colorado Springs, Colorado. Massive development on the east/northeast side of town has indeed imposed both the real and intangible costs I mentioned.
You are apparently so wrapped up in your little anti-enviro snit that you seem quite unable to recognize that there are real costs involved in the position you support.
Whether the imposed costs are worth the return, is a matter that can be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Reasonable people can and do use that approach.
Your position admits no debate -- it's pave-and-pack all the way. As such, I find it difficult to distinguish between you and the no-growth environmentalists.