I'm assuming no members of the Landmarks Committee are going to tell me how they intend to vote this time around.
And frankly, it's hard for me to predict. The only basis for a prediction would be my assumption that Hammes (the developers) would not have spent the last three months re-doing their plan if they didn't think it was going to satisfy the sons-a-guns who turned them down in November.
I had the pleasure of running into a member of the commission when I was sitting alone at the Amy's Cafe bar, waiting for other participants in the Edgewater drinking game to arrive. I can't remember her name, but she told me in a very matter-of-factly way that the project would be a shoo-in if it weren't in a historical district. So will these minor changes affect the votes of those charged with preserving history?
The irony, as in many other city government situations, is that the people voting against a project dear to the mayor's heart are mayoral appointees. That is a credit to their independence, and perhaps a credit to city government's (including the mayor) professionalism in choosing candidates with credentials. Nevertheless, I have to wonder if Mayor Dave would have at least re-considered if he'd have known these experts would be such a thorn in the side of his development agenda.