Not so fast.

Two absences helped prevent first passage Tuesday of an ordinance the Ames City Council unanimously ordered in May.

The ordinance would create a moratorium on development and demolition in about 6 1/2 blocks of Campustown.

The council voted in May to for city staff create the ordinance.

The measure, which requires four votes for the council to approve, was defeated 3-1. Two council members, Matthew Goodman and Daryle Vegge, were absent from the meeting, precipitating a motion to table the measure until the full council could be assembled. That motion was defeated after a tie-breaking vote from Mayor Ted Tedesco.

The council did, however, pass a motion to reconsider the ordinance at its Aug. 10 meeting.

During the public hearing on the ordinance, several members of the crowd voiced their opinions of the issue.

Gloria Betcher, chairwoman of the Ames Historical Preservation Commission, said her group unanimously supported the moratorium.

“This would give us all additional breathing space,” she said. “Our greatest concern is that we will lose something significant if we don’t act in the next six months.”

Betcher also said her group would be able to use the time to look at how other communities are dealing with the issue of demolition, and to offer recommendations as to how Ames could better address the issue.

Fern Kupfer, president of the South Campus Area Neighborhood association, said her group is not against development in the area.

“Contrary to what has been said, SCAN has no hidden agenda,” she said. “We want development that is thoughtful … we want people to be aware of what the ramifications of development are. The moratorium gives thoughtful people a chance to think about these things.”

Several opponents of the measure also spoke out at the meeting.

David Maahs, 1007 Vermont St., said he didn’t see an immediate need for the moratorium.

“This moratorium would send the wrong signal to developers,” he said.

Matt Randall, vice president of the Randall Corporation, agreed.

“This ‘tool’ is really a hammer, squashing property owners’ rights to develop their own properties as they see fit,” he said. “It’s an extremely bad idea not to allow people to develop their property simply because someone doesn’t like it.”

Councilman Steve Goodhue cast the lone dissenting vote. Goodhue said the moratorium would polarize those involved.

“I would prefer we bring property owners and neighbors together,” he said. “There’s not much common ground right now, and the moratorium would make it much harder to find any common ground.”