1700-1722 Central Street extension only if modified to be consistent with Central Street Plan

The minutes of the Council meeting at which the last extension was approved confirm my recollection of reports in the newspapers: that Liz Tisdahl said that she would vote for that last extension but not for a further one in the future, at least not without a new proposal.  She should be held to this, which I as well as others relied upon in voting for her as mayor.
The project was initially approved despite non-compliance with the Central Street Plan, although, as the city's lawyer advised, it was not legally "grandfathered" in under the prior zoning requirements.
Any further extension should be dependent on the developers' agreement to a new more economically viable proposal, as several council members stated at the time of the last extension (see http://www.centralstreetneighbors.com/?q=node/599), which also complies with the Central Street Plan, rather than continuing to allow the developers to hold this attractive site hostage to a plan that was overly ambitious from the start as well as being not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
As with the Wall Street fiasco, the developers took a risk with such grandiose plans in the midst of the unrealistic real estate bubble.  They, rather than the community, should accept the downside as well as the potential upside of that gamble.  Rather than continue to hold the site hostage to a development plan that opponents argued from the beginning was unrealistic economically, the developers should scale the project back or turn it over (at a loss, if need be) to others who are willing to propose a project that is more realistic economically and consistent with the unanimously approved Central Street Plan.
It is time for the council to stand up for the community, rather than always giving way to the developers.