But it is clearly their role to lay out the pros of an HD. It is not their role to lay out the cons
Right, Tony. By their own "Rules and Regulations" (which I assume I can quote -- it's not anything as silly as the Magna Carta or the Constitution of the United States, so it ought to be acceptable to ... well, if you read the latest ad hominem attack on me, you'll know who):
"... to make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council to further historic preservation..."
"The Commission also, however, has an advocacy function within the municipal government in the duty to make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council and a like role within the public at large..."
"... the Commission may perform an administrative and regulatory function, an advocacy role, or both."
So it goes beyond just a role to "lay out the pros," it involves actively advocating historic designation. You can see the problem with the "information" the PHC is providing. You can also see the problem with a city agency that acts as advocate, then puts on its judicial hat and decides whether to approve a nomination it's supported and helped prepare, then intends to administer the regulations it's just imposed. Is this the American way? Or is the latter question too philosophical for people apparently willing to surrender their rights in the name of -- er, um -- in the name of (you fill in the blank, I can't think of it: ___________).
Al Krigman
