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.
Specific buildings designated landmarks always get that designation for reasons beyond mere age:http://www.cityofmadison.com/neighborho ... vation.htm
Scroll down to the third major heading for a quick discussion. You might be interested to learn Indian mounds are among Madison's designated landmarks, which number 135 with national designation and 179 with local designation.http://www.madisonpreservation.org/about/
(Not a city government site)
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.
Clarenbach has a place in Madison history (and his mother had a larger one) but if you're going to try saving buildings on the grounds he lived there once, you'll also have to save that big old yellowish house on the corner of E. Mifflin by the Market basket store, where I believe David lived for a longer time.
This stops making sense at some point. I'd rather be sure Tammy Baldwin's house and Richard Wagner's house are marked -- both are locations identified with the individual over a long period and both individuals have had longer tenure as important Madison political figures. A Landmark designation should not be issued as a move in some political feud. That cheapens the whole thing and is a sure way to push the whole committee and concept right into the dumpster of failed preservation policy.