Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
rrnate
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3672
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 6:33 pm
Location: Madison's Corporate Underbelly
Contact:

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby rrnate » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:07 pm

Like Stu has said, I'm sure Dave's arguments are in truth based on "being bitter because he was fired" and also because he is a butt-breath (or something to that effect).

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Detritus » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:12 pm

snoqueen wrote:I agree with that point and thought DC should never have made such a nonsensical argument.

He sounds like one of those right wingers who think the government bureaucracy is illegitimate because we don't directly elect positions like head of the IRS. He ought to know better.

Actually, I don't think that's what they think. They think the bureaucracy is illegitimate because THEY didn't get to pick positions like the head of the IRS. But they can't say that, because it makes them sound un-American, so they pretend to favor democracy.

In DC's case, it appears that he thinks any bureaucracy which disagrees with him is illegitimate.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8730
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Huckleby » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:22 pm

green union terrace chair wrote:It is maddening that a former mayor doesn't understand how our representative democracy works. Did you vote for Steve Cover, Katherine Cornwell or anyone else in the Planning Department? Did you vote for the police or fire chiefs?
It's you who missed the point. The council does not need a supermajority to override a policy wish of the fire chief.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8730
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Huckleby » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:26 pm

Detritus wrote:In DC's case, it appears that he thinks any bureaucracy which disagrees with him is illegitimate.

BS. He was very specific and clear about the change he supported.

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Detritus » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:43 pm

Huckleby wrote:
Detritus wrote:In DC's case, it appears that he thinks any bureaucracy which disagrees with him is illegitimate.

BS. He was very specific and clear about the change he supported.

You know who else was also very specific and clear about the change he supported?

That's right--Hitler!

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8730
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Huckleby » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:50 pm

I was thinking Stalin, but OK.

green union terrace chair
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3023
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 3:33 pm
Location: Memorial Union
Contact:

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby green union terrace chair » Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:57 pm

Huckleby wrote:
green union terrace chair wrote:It is maddening that a former mayor doesn't understand how our representative democracy works. Did you vote for Steve Cover, Katherine Cornwell or anyone else in the Planning Department? Did you vote for the police or fire chiefs?
It's you who missed the point. The council does not need a supermajority to override a policy wish of the fire chief.

It's not the only case where a supermajority is required. It's also been on the books for decades and Cieslewicz didn't raise a stink about it while in office until Edgewater reared its head.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8730
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Huckleby » Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:03 pm

Enough fighting. I think we all need to relax and picture some happy scenes.

Image

Image

Image

Stu Levitan
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:40 pm
Location: Studio B of the historic Abernathy Building
Contact:

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Stu Levitan » Fri Mar 07, 2014 6:29 pm

snoqueen wrote: That's why it hurt my head when Stu tried to protect one of the Gilman St properties under the reasoning David Clarenbach once rented it. That's really stretching.



NO!!! NEVER HAPPENED!! I DID NOT TRY TO PROTECT 123!! PLEASE!!
I have been absolutely supportive of moving 123 over to Gorham St. Where on earth did you get the notion I opposed that? It's NOT TRUE!
(btw - Clarenbach also owned the property)

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12973
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby snoqueen » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:13 pm

Why'd you bring him up then?

By protecting I mean either leaving the house in place or moving it, but not demolishing it. You have tried to protect it, and that's fine with me. Moving it is fine with me, as well.

I really have no dispute with anything you or Landmarks has been doing with the exception of your turning your disagreement with Dave Cieslewicz personal in public. When that happens you lose support because other people don't want to get tangled up, and your dignity is diminished. I would like to see Landmarks treated seriously. I wanted you to stick to the facts, that's all. They are sufficient.

So don't shout.

Stu Levitan
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:40 pm
Location: Studio B of the historic Abernathy Building
Contact:

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Stu Levitan » Sat Mar 08, 2014 1:31 am

Wait a minute -- if by protecting it you include moving, and you say you're fine with that, why did you earlier say the notion of protecting 123 hurt your head? I don't understand. Thanks.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12973
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby snoqueen » Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:16 am

The notion of protecting it by invoking David Clarenbach hurt my head.

I elaborated upon that by reminding you he lived in other places. So why use his name to bolster your case in regard to this one house in particular? It cheapens the concept of historic preservation by 1) applying it as a tactic in a political dispute; and 2) applying it on the fly, without mindfully selecting whom should be honored and which sites relevant to an era or an issue should be preserved.

Here's what I wrote.

It's important stuff and the designation should not be easily attained. It has to mean something. That's why it hurt my head when Stu tried to protect one of the Gilman St properties under the reasoning David Clarenbach once rented it. That's really stretching
.

Bold added by me for the purposes of this discussion. The whole thing can be found here:

posting.php?mode=quote&f=35&p=756980

bdog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3428
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby bdog » Sat Mar 08, 2014 9:36 am

Dave: "two ratty, old student houses ... two dilapidated houses ..."

Reply: The second house is 123 W. Gilman St., former home of Rep. David Clarenbach and Ald. James Yeadon. This house is not "ratty" or "dilapidated," and SBA isn't even claiming it is -- SBA is proposing to save and move to W. Gorham St.


I took this as a defense that the house was not dilapidated since DC lived there. Not that it has any historical significance BECAUSE dc lived there.

Although I would ask how long ago was that? College students and cats can do a lot of damage in a short period of time.

Stu Levitan
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3479
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2003 8:40 pm
Location: Studio B of the historic Abernathy Building
Contact:

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Stu Levitan » Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:27 am

Sno, you're still ascribing to me things I never said or did. There are others who have tried to stop the project because of the Clarenbach connection. I have not done so, and I would like you to cite something I said or wrote that supports your assertion that I did. There is a difference between wanting to save the house because it fits into the broad history of the neighborhood and wanting to save it because of the connection to particular individuals. I wish you would recognize and accept that I have never said anything about saving 123 because of the Clarenbach connection, but only because of the way it fits into the broad architectural and social history of the neighborhood. Others have raised the Clarenbach connection; not I.

Bdog,no one other than Cieslewicz has asserted that 123 is "ratty" and should be torn down.

bdog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3428
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby bdog » Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:09 am

BTW, I think the sole intent of the original column was for DC (the other one) to let all developers know he is still "open for business".

He's greasing the skids for his next run at Mayor, nothing more.

In that sense I don't think it was anything personal against Landmarks.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests