This is a weaken question. The proposal sets out to limit the negative effects of sprawl by requiring that infrastructure is in place before developers can build in an area. Consider each choice, looking for a reason why the proposal may not have positive results:

(A) An increase in cost may not be a good thing, but if the population rapidly increased, it may be well be desirable to spend that much money on transportation. It's unclear whether this evidence would undermine the proposal.
(B) This choice is far too general to be correct. Whether or not sprawl is rarely avoided does not indicate whether the proposal will have beneficial effects.
(C) This choice would seem to reduce the demands of the proposal; however, the word "some" suggests that the proposal would still be necessary if such infrastructure were desirable.
(D) This choice suggests a potential benefit of the proposal. There's no drawback here.
(E) This is correct. If the proposal were enacted, there would be an unnecessary financial burden on either the city or on developers, making it more difficult to develop areas like this--areas that do not exhibit the characteristics of sprawl.