During a recent government meeting, significant discussions centered around the postponement of several development items, particularly those categorized under density bonuses (DB). Council members and community advocates expressed strong opposition to advancing item 97, which pertains to DB 90, citing concerns over potential displacement of residents and the need for more thoughtful urban planning.

Councilwoman Jenny Grayson and other speakers emphasized that less intense options, such as DB 60, DB 70, and DB 80, are forthcoming and should be prioritized over the more aggressive DB 90. They argued that passing DB 90 would set a troubling precedent for neighborhoods and could lead to the displacement of long-term residents. Grayson urged her colleagues to consider the implications of their decisions, stating, \"Don't set the precedent today and displace residents who have been in their homes for generations.\"

Chris Page echoed these sentiments, criticizing the city for what he described as a waste of time in policy discussions. He called for a postponement of all DB 90 cases, asserting that the city has not adequately engaged with community input and that many thoughtful proposals have gone unaddressed. \"You should get your policies right and you will save everyone time,\" he remarked.

The meeting also addressed item 102, with similar calls for postponement. Advocates reiterated that the current proposals do not align with community desires and urged the council to consider the broader impact of their decisions on local residents.

Overall, the discussions highlighted a growing tension between development initiatives and community preservation, with many speakers advocating for a more deliberate and inclusive approach to urban planning. The council's decision on these postponements will be closely watched by both residents and developers as the city navigates its growth and development strategies.