No, I think they are opposed because they were not contacted. I have always said one acre should be given to the local school system because there is a need for a school, especially a high school. Development has brought in a lot of school children that the current administration ignores in tax abatements hearings. A typical tax abatement hearing might show only 4 students on a 100 unit building. Those numbers are not realistic.
You love to make this claim, but guess what: I think you are just making it up. I am now living in my second development in which an abatement was granted (both developments had 20-year abatements, and both were 100+ units, one in BeLa, and the other in DTJC) and they were both almost entirely devoid of children, particularly school-age kids.
When in BeLa, I resided at the same building for almost nine years, and in all those years, I can only recall two families with one kid attending schools. Everyone else was single adults, or couples without kids, and the few that ended up getting pregnant and having kids, soon moved out and went elsewhere. At my new development (also 100+ units) there is one unit with one kid in high school (not sure if attending public schools in JC, but I am almost positive that is not the case) and a handful of families that have recently had kids and are looking at future options, including moving elsewhere.
My point is that the abatement studies may not be as far off as you claim: I am sure my experience is not that unique. I have friends in other abated buildings and their experiences are similar in that their buildings have almost no kids, and most families with newborns end up moving elsewhere.