I've been involved in the local development issue for some time, and I think that the process is pretty open to community input. Most of meeting of the community organization for which I volunteer consists of reviewing development proposals and writing recommendations.
That does not mean that we always get what we want, or that we always agree what we want - but the process is pretty much open. One of our biggest victories was against a corporate consortium that involved an out-of state developer, Johns Hopkins, and the city (altogether big $$). While we did not stop the planned development, we extracted enough concessions to make that development an actual improvement to the community. Since then, JHMI is bending backwards to get the community approval for its expansion plans in this part of the city.
Of course there was a small coterie of nuts who opposed anything Hopkins in principle (big corporation yada yada yada...) but they were a clear minority. Most people wanted an input in the development rather than stopping it, and got that input when they became actively involved. By contrast, the nuts I just referred to, took a 'sit on my hands" approach and started bitching when somebody took an initiative without consulting their majesties.
I my experience, the folks who do nothing and expect everything being handed to them are usually the ones that bitch the most about gentrification when they are bypassed in the process. But why should somebody be bothered with them, if they do not bother to pro-actively take care of their own interests?
Wojtek