If he wants to represent his constituents views then by all means do so, but that would also mean putting a supportive comment on the portal for the (probably) higher number of stadium supporters that he represents.I don't know and don't agree with his objection but that's the spirit of it and I'm sure it is something his constituents have asked him to raise so he'd be a bit negligent not to. If (as I believe is the case) it won't cause any major issue/any issues can be easily mitigated then the objection won't be upheld but the issue will be seen to have been looked into and dismissed/ameliorated.
If you think it won't be an issue then what difference is an objection. An objection that has no legs is not a threat, surely?
Or has he just chosen to represent those he agrees with...