Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12639
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby snoqueen » Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:38 am

At least one of these two has to go: historic districts, supermajority.


I think you'll find that with the exception of the Langdon area historic district, Madison's historic districts generally have strong support from the people who live and own property in them, and from their surrounding neighborhoods.

Stu Levitan
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3456
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 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:45 am

There is no local Langdon area historic district. There is a National District. There is a local Mansion Hill Historic District,which only covers a block and a half of Langdon.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8330
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Huckleby » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:30 am

Henry Vilas wrote:
Huckleby wrote:I have no idea.

That's why I asked the question. Just as I figured.


smug much?

The rules governing other groups is irrelevant to the LC, your question was an irrelevant diversion.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21197
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:40 am

You are against needed a supermajority of the Common Council to overrule commission decision, based on your understanding democratic principles, but only in one specific case: decisions by the Landmarks Commission. I called you on that and then you say I'm smug. I say you are a hypocrite.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8330
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Huckleby » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:47 am

snoqueen wrote: Madison's historic districts generally have strong support from the people who live and own property in them, and from their surrounding neighborhoods.


I imagine so. But as we saw in the Edgewater fiasco, HDs aren't in the long term growth interests of the city as a whole. It allowed the Landmark Commission to treat a dilapidated eye sore as a historic, precious gem just because it was located in a GIANT patch of space downtown (approximately 30 square blocks of the isthmus) that is ludicrously called "historic."

The power overreach here is astonishing. The Landmark Commission is not protecting certain historic buildings from ravenous developers. They are carrying water for reactionary sentimentalists who don't want Madison to change, they want entire neighborhoods, actually large swaths of the city, to be frozen in time.

I don't want or expect 2010 Madison to look like 1910 Madison. That's a stupid and doomed battle.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8330
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Huckleby » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:01 am

Henry Vilas wrote:You are against needed a supermajority of the Common Council to overrule commission decision, based on your understanding democratic principles, but only in one specific case: decisions by the Landmarks Commission.

"based on democratic principles"? I never went down that road. No, we are talking pragmatic governance.

???? Yes, it is appropriate for some agencies to have supermajority protection on certain questions. Obviously you would not grant this extraordinary power to every agency on all policy decisions.

I don't suspect you of being nuts, surely you get this point.

Henry Vilas wrote:I called you on that and then you say I'm smug. I say you are a hypocrite.

Very strange word to pull out there. It's hypocritical to support different powers for different agencies?
Last edited by Huckleby on Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21197
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:03 am

Are you now saying it doesn't take a supermajority to override other commissions' decisions?

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8330
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Huckleby » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:08 am

Huckleby wrote:Yes, it is appropriate for some agencies to have supermajority protection on certain questions. Obviously you would not grant this extraordinary power to every agency on all policy decisions.


Henry Vilas wrote:Are you now saying it doesn't take a supermajority to override other commissions' decisions?


You need a time out, you are acting up.

Stu Levitan
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3456
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 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:32 am

Pursuant to sec. 28.183(5)(b) of the MGO, it indeed takes a supermajority (2/3 vote) to reverse or modify an action of the Plan Commission. That's kind of relevant to this discussion and the former mayor's attack on LC, don't you think?

And for those who weren't paying attention during Edgewater, we did NOT deny the permit to save some crumbling old non-historic building, but ONLY because the new tower was so ginormously out of scale with the surrounding buildings. I accept criticism for what we do, but I really hate it when you criticize us for something that just didn't happen.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8330
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Huckleby » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:40 am

Stu Levitan wrote:takes a supermajority (2/3 vote) to reverse or modify an action of the Plan Commission. That's kind of relevant to this discussion and the former mayor's attack on LC, don't you think?


Not relevant. The appropriateness of a supermajority for planning commission is a different discussion with a different set of details and inner workings.

Are we also going to bring up the agency tasked with running the zoo, and point out that they don't have supermajority protection?

The combination of historic districts and supermajority protection makes the LC commission too big for its britches, in my view. This is an endless, tedious debate, there never is going to be a meeting of the minds. (Except Snoqueen did state earlier say that she was open to discussing a simple-majority override by council. No doubt a heartburn moment for you, Stu.)

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8330
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Huckleby » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:44 am

Stu Levitan wrote:we did NOT deny the permit to save some crumbling old non-historic building, but ONLY because the new tower was so ginormously out of scale with the surrounding building


well, OK, your intent was not to preserve a dilapidated building, that was just the effect of the Historic District power. You get to decide what constitutes too big in a giant swath of the downtown. Way too much power.

For sake of discussion, I'll give you one or the other. If you had to choose between Historic Districts or Supermajority protection, which would you keep?

green union terrace chair
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2981
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 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:56 am

Huckleby wrote:
Stu Levitan wrote:we did NOT deny the permit to save some crumbling old non-historic building, but ONLY because the new tower was so ginormously out of scale with the surrounding building


well, OK, your intent was not to preserve a dilapidated building, that was just the effect of the Historic District power. You get to decide what constitutes too big in a giant swath of the downtown. Way too much power.

They don't pull a number out of their asses. It's in the ordinance. Do you not understand that? The commission applies the ordinance to development proposals. The ordinance was written and passed by the city council. If the council wants to change the ordinance, they can.

Don't argue against a status quo that doesn't exist.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8330
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby Huckleby » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:09 pm

green union terrace chair wrote:They don't pull a number out of their asses. It's in the ordinance. Do you not understand that? The commission applies the ordinance to development proposals. The ordinance was written and passed by the city council. If the council wants to change the ordinance, they can.

Sounds like we don't a LC in the process at all. Why are we having this discussion?

You are implying that it was impossible for the new Edgewater to be built because of existing law. (I don't know the details of how the waivers or whatever were exercised, but clearly your implication is wrong.)

Lets cut the baloney: the Landmarks Commission played a critical role in blocking the Edgewater development. They nearly succeeded, but were barely overriden.

jman111
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3422
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:43 pm
Location: Dane County
Contact:

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby jman111 » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:13 pm

Huckleby wrote:
Stu Levitan wrote:takes a supermajority (2/3 vote) to reverse or modify an action of the Plan Commission. That's kind of relevant to this discussion and the former mayor's attack on LC, don't you think?


Not relevant.

Says you. Based on former mayor Dave's playing of the "elected official" card, it would seem relevant to the discussion.
DC wrote:The Landmarks Commission isn't charged with taking into account the broader picture, so it should not be the de facto decision-maker on any project. That should be left to responsible, accountable elected officials whose job it is to weigh all of the public policy issues involved.

gargantua
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4890
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 1:30 pm
Location: Madison

Re: Former Mayor to Landmarks Commission: Drop Dead

Postby gargantua » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:14 pm

Huckleby wrote:
Stu Levitan wrote:we did NOT deny the permit to save some crumbling old non-historic building, but ONLY because the new tower was so ginormously out of scale with the surrounding building


For sake of discussion, I'll give you one or the other. If you had to choose between Historic Districts or Supermajority protection, which would you keep?

For sake of discussion, I'd keep both.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests