I can't support an MZO here because some of the local opposition to the project is irksome. That's insufficient cause for a very heavy-handed power.
I certainly take the point about there being value in having a more clearly prescribed set of circumstances guiding the use of MZOs, but I think this is where we differ in this particular case: "local opposition to a project" should not, in my opinion, be sufficient grounds on which to object to the use of an MZO, because it gives too much credit to the motives of the local opposition.
I have a pretty good private understanding of how the "local opposition" came to be in this case, and the answer is that a literal handful of wealthy and connected neighbours just don't like the design, and more or less every argument that has been made by the cadre of RAs they have assembled/co-opted to advance their cause is a disingenuous attempt at veiling their own personal distaste for the design. This is simply not how community consultation or city planning should work, because it's too subjective, too insubstantive, and places too much power in the hands of a few grumpy neighbours.
I know, too, for what it's worth, that there is a goodly number of residents who are ostensibly represented by the aforementioned RAs who are rightly pissed off that so much time and energy is being spent on the personal crusade of the ring leaders (especially given the litany of neighbourhood issues that actually affect quality of life to which the RAs could and should be dedicating their resources).