A player in my game once told me something in relation to this and it has effected doctrine for both fleet deployment and expansion. The quote goes something like "You don't build an empire by paying the ferryman every time you want to cross a river, you build bridges" and that's how I treat gated JPs in my games. When planning expansion I will typically build a gate on both sides of every JP within what I consider within my borders and secure. Like bridges they provide ease of movement between colonies, even for commercial ships with no jump engines. For me jump gates have also had the added benefit of of allowing you to make your warships more efficient. Not requiring a jump drive on a military vessel allows more tonnage to be put towards either defensive systems, sensors, or offensive weapons. I prefer gates over tenders mainly for that reason. That doesn't mean jump tenders don't have their place or I don't design ships with jump drives for assaults across unstabilized/un-gated JPs or for exploration. Both have their pros and cons. This freedom of movement is also passed onto enemy forces (even though most NPR ships Ive seen have jump engines). Being able to remove/restrict strategic or economic freedom movement by reversing whatever process allowed it would add to gameplay and could be critical in some circumstances.
There has been mention of balance between gates and drives here as well. Tweaking the amount of time it takes to build/stabilize would be a better way to balance gates rather than adding a component cost or building a gate via factories or a shipyard (and also for the sake of micro). Falling back to my bridge analogy, these can be more investments in time rather than resources.
I think a lot of this also boils down to how the individual plays aurora. if you use a lot of jump tenders one may not put much value in gates/stabilized JPs as their style allows them to move more freely without them, they can almost become a second thought.