Ongoing tensions over a potential historic district designation in an affluent San Mateo neighborhood escalated to a county-level dispute this week, as residents and local elected officials asked the Board of Supervisors to weigh in on the matter, which was ultimately denied.
San Mateo County Supervisor Noelia Corzo, along with President Warren Slocum, introduced a resolution that would call on the State Historical Resources Commission to reject an application submitted by the San Mateo Heritage Alliance, a neighborhood association spearheading the move to make the city’s Baywood district historic.
“This is an infringement on property rights. This effort, in my opinion, and in the opinion of the majority of residents, is undemocratic,” Corzo said. “There is not a consensus from the entire neighborhood, or even the majority, in support of this effort, and many residents don’t even know this effort is happening and that their property rights are at risk.”
The issue started to heat up in 2022 when a family faced pushback from members of the Heritage Alliance after they sought to demolish their roughly 100-year-old Baywood home. The neighborhood group subsequently submitted an application, or nomination package, to the state’s Office of Historic Preservation in hopes the agency would confer the historical status on about 400 Baywood homes. If granted, property owners of all the applicable homes would have to adhere to specific architectural standards — many of which are Spanish revival, as that is what the neighborhood is known for — if they wanted to significantly alter the exterior of their homes, and it could also require residents to undergo additional approval processes as outlined by the California Environmental Quality Act when making such changes.
Contention among the city’s leadership was on full display during the meeting Tuesday, Feb. 27, as San Mateo Councilmember Amourence Lee chided Mayor Lisa Diaz Nash during public comment for not sufficiently recusing herself from the issue, as Nash lives in Baywood and her husband was a former board member and current member of the Heritage Alliance. She also implied there have been undercurrents of racial bias and discrimination during the process, largely attributed to the fact that the area is, as Corzo stated, “the 20th most segregated neighborhood of white wealth in the entire Bay Area.”
San Mateo Deputy Mayor Rob Newsom rebuked the claims and stated board members would be overstepping if they intervened in the matter.
“I also do not appreciate that San Mateo at large is being called a white racist enclave. The neighborhood of Baywood is a well-to-do neighborhood, but currently more than a third of the residents in that neighborhood are of minorities other than white, and the city of San Mateo is also over 60% minorities other than white,” Newsom said. “So there are some things that are not sitting well with me in terms of what our city actually represents.”
Recommended for you
While many opponents of the historic district have appealed to the City Council, local jurisdictions have little control of the matter once an application is sent to the state. Even if the majority of Baywood property owners officially voice their opposition to the Heritage Alliance’s application, the OHP could still ultimately determine it is an eligible historic property, which, based on San Mateo’s current policies, could necessitate CEQA review.
Proponents of the potential historic district cite the imperative to preserve the area’s long-standing character and remain adamant they won’t withdraw the state application, while those against it say it adds more time-consuming and costly burdens if they want to make external renovations. Pro-housing advocates have also said the push for historic districts can obstruct progress on housing goals, as they are often exempt from state legislation meant to spur the construction of new homes, such as Senate Bill 9.
The resolution was ultimately withdrawn, with the majority of board members stating the issue was not in their purview and pushed the city’s leadership to work closely with residents and one another on the matter. Mueller said that he not only has insufficient evidence on the topic to weigh in, but doing so on a now-politicized issue would set a dangerous precedent.
“In the number of years I’ve been on a City Council, I can’t remember the Board of Supervisors ever weighing in on something like this … ultimately, the decision in the city of San Mateo was not to agendize the issue,” Mueller said. “I am not in favor of adopting this resolution with the scant evidence we have in front of us and the lack of procedure we have to do so, especially given the precedential weight of what may happen when the other cities that watch this occur.”
Supervisor David Pine echoed Mueller’s comments, stating he felt “very reluctant” to intervene on a neighborhood-specific issue.
Correction: The article has been updated to clarify that a historical designation in Baywood would require adherence to specific architectural standards, including Spanish revival.
Members of the group opposed to the historic designation have called me racist, MAGA, anti-abortion, and anti-LBGQT+. It’s a lot, but not true on any of them. It seems when this group has a weak argument, the claims of racism and name calling come front and center, and that was very much on display yesterday. Historic designation protects the beautiful architectural history, changes to homes will codify the design guidelines that used to be in place by the city. ADUs, additions, remodeling will take place as always. For more information, please check out the Heritage Alliance website: smheritage.org.
Connieuweiss, why is the Heritage Alliance attempting to incorporate an entire neighborhood as a historic district, whether each home is truly historical or not? Why do some folks who do not live in the neighborhood feel the need to force affected homeowners into a historical district? As someone recently said to me, just because something is old doesn’t make it historic.
You reference the Heritage Alliance site and when I do, I see instances where the words “may” and “should” are being used. Please note that “may” and “should” are also understood to mean “may not.” And recently, there was a published LTE author in favor of historic designation under the impression historic designation causes a loss in property values, in agreement with realtors and objective reporting.
The Heritage Alliance acknowledges there is red tape (although they try to soft-pedal it). Another historic designation supporter claimed there aren’t additional requirements unless the City revises the historic preservation ordinance to add it. Which they can do at any time, adding red tape. Without the historic district listing, there is no associated red tape.
Have folks browsed the lessredtape.com site, especially the FAQs section and homeowner stories section? Are there homeowner stories in smheritage.org about the joys of living in a historic district? I'd like to hear from those who didn’t choose to be in the district and what additional red tape or costs they've had to endure.
As for the SMBOS not taking a position, I’m sure this issue will come back to haunt those who want another term on the BOS or have other political aspirations. Meanwhile, if those against the historic district designation “lose” I’d recommend they take it to court if that’s a possibility, and nowadays, what isn’t?
Terrence, you’ve asked these questions before and I’ve answered what I can. Why don’t you write info@smheritage.org and ask to be included in an upcoming meeting.
Connieuweiss, a decidedly unsatisfying response. I guess the bigger question now is why you’re for a historical district if you appear to not understand the anticipated and unanticipated consequences.
As for smheritage.org and in this age of instant gratification I’m not sure I/we can afford to wait for another quarterly meeting to get answers. I’d prefer folks from, or support the Heritage Alliance to explain their motives.
It is undeniable that Baywood has a racist heritage because of racial covenants (as does a lot of the mid Peninsula). These covenants have continued to influence neighborhood makeup even now, according to Mr. Hedge’s statistics (and “The Color of Law”). Pointing this out is not the same as calling the whole city racist. (I’m white and live in another city that was influenced by racial covenants.)
The past has zero influence on today's Bay Area racial makeup. Cities like Cupertino 70% Asian, Fremont 62% Asian show how demographics change. Had Asians felt San Mateo 94402 was the best city to raise their children and families, they would have found a way to make San Mateo their preferred destination.
I would not have been able to purchase my home in Baywood when it was first built as I am Jewish, but I’ve lived here 30 years and there’s now over a third non-white residents. I acknowledge the history but it doesn’t influence anything in our lives today. To indicate otherwise dilutes the real and present threat of racism in our country today.
I would not have been able to purchase my home in Baywood when it was first built as I am Jewish, but I’ve lived here 30 years and there’s now over a third non-white residents. I acknowledge the history but it doesn’t influence anything in our lives today. To indicate otherwise dilutes the real and present threat of racism in our country today.
Thank you for covering this story. A few corrections are necessary. First, if Baywood is designated as a historic district, Spanish Revival architecture is NOT mandated. There are many architectural styles in the district, and those will be welcome as well. Second, the Heritage Alliance is not “adamant” about withdrawing the nomination application. We simply declined a request to do so at the time.
It should also be noted that Supervisor Corzo and President Slocum did not contact the Heritage Alliance or Mayor Diaz Nash, and did not return phone calls or emails when I found out about the agenda item. The resolution had over three pages of identified factual errors. These are the hallmarks of a political hit job.
Councilmember Amourence Lee and Planning Commissioners John Ebneter and Seema Patel were in attendance and supported the resolution to oppose the Baywood Historic District. Is that appropriate for City representatives? These City representatives repeated unfounded claims of racism and segregation. That is the argument people use when it is the only argument they have.
Laurie H., thanks for your comment. But this doesn't answer my question as to why the Heritage Alliance, with members that don’t live in the neighborhood, trying to force Baywood homeowners into a historic district, whether they like it or not? Let’s face it, not everything old is historic.
The Heritage Alliance admits there’s more red tape and we all know more red tape entails higher costs. As for higher property values, there is no definitive evidence one way or another. Homeowners can individually apply for historical designation. So what’s in it for other homeowners other than more red tape and higher costs if they're stuck with a historic designation tag? It’s almost as if the Heritage Alliance is trying to get something for nothing. Or is there a hidden agenda? Perhaps an attempt to wrangle (more?) taxpayer-funded historic designation jobs, a la Sheriff’s civilian oversight?
Terence, You are correct. Not everything old is historic. You are not correct on your other points. The process is not forced. Historic preservation is a city, county, state, national, and international value. Evaluating an area for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is an academic exercise conducted by professionals (architectural historians). The district characteristics are evaluated against the standardized criteria developed over many years for state and federal regulations, starting with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Cities often use the same criteria.
Historic districts must meet specific criteria, including is whether the area is a) “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history”; or b) whether the district was “associated with patterns of history deemed important, was associated with important persons or events, or embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction”; or c) that “represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf
The district must have integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Baywood meets two of the criteria for listing (only one is required): it was a commuter suburb, which was important in the pattern of history in the region and the collection of intact, Colonial Revival architecture.
There may or may not be additional costs; it all depends on the City’s regulations and interpretation. Basically, only demolition, substantial demolition, or incompatible changes to the property visible from the street would require any analysis beyond what the City already does.
Chris Eckert, a realtor and property owner in Glazenwood (San Mateo Historic District), analyzed sales data for the last 10 years. Property appreciation and per-square-foot prices were substantially higher than adjacent Hayward Park. Most studies show historic districts have higher appreciation and home values.
Maybe the real hidden agenda is that of the construction contractor, condo developer, and mortgage broker who initiated the opposition using false information.
Or maybe the real UNHIDDEN agenda of “the opposition” is that you are infuriating them by trying to control them, against their will, dictating what they can or cannot do with their homes.
Laurie H., thanks for your response. I’d like to know your definition of “forced” because if we take the standard definition… You say the process is not forced yet if we review Seema’s comment below, it sounds like the Heritage Alliance, instead of following a local process, did an end around and went to a CA Office to push for a historic district. It appears homeowners cannot opt out which essentially forces property owners to be designated as a historic district, whether they want it or not. We can use “subjugate” or “compel” instead of “forced.” You say there may or may not be additional costs. The best case is $0. If there is no historic district designation, the additional costs are always $0.
I still don’t understand the resistance to allowing homeowners to individually apply for historic designation. Did a Baywood homeowner request historic designation, fail, and then decide they would get designation one way or another, regardless of how it affected everyone else? Why don’t homeowners, if they wish, follow historic change guidelines on their own? Or are they looking to get a National Register of Historic Places plaque for their home? (And would they get one if they’re in a historic district instead of a home?) It seems to me that no matter how you slice it, this historic district isn’t a “win” for homeowners that don’t opt in (if they had the option).
You say most studies show historic districts have higher appreciation and home values. Let’s say they go south. Would the Heritage Alliance pay the difference in sales price to an owner when and if they decide to sell? And how about a Heritage Alliance fund to reimburse homeowners for additional time and money spent dealing with more red tape and additional costs? It sounds like a win-win to me.
As for contractors, developers, and mortgage brokers having a hidden agenda, why would it make a difference to them? They'd profit regardless of historic designation, or not. In fact, they may make more profit from a historic designation due to increased costs and potentially specialized and more expensive materials.
To be clear, I did not express a position on the resolution, I shared concerns about the state process. My comment can be viewed at the 3:25:05 timestamp here:
"Good morning Members of the Board of Supervisors, my name is Seema Patel, I serve on San Mateo’s Planning Commission but I am speaking on my own behalf today.
San Mateo has a process for designating properties and districts historic. Instead of utilizing the local process, the San Mateo Heritage Alliance submitted an application to the CA Office of Historic Preservation to have the Baywood neighborhood listed as a historic district on the National Register of Historic Places. Anyone can submit an application for historic designation to the OHP, you don’t need to be the property owner or even reside in the same city as the property or district. There is no way for a local jurisdiction or property owners to veto the application - objection letters can be submitted, but the Historical Resources Commission can declare the property or district “eligible to be listed” over the objections, and eligible properties are treated the same as listed properties under federal and state law, including CEQA.
Surprisingly, the criteria for historic designation for a district is LESS strict than the criteria for an individual property. The president of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance has stated, “...most of the homes in Baywood do not rise to the level to be individually significant (that is a high bar)....” At the San Mateo information session an attendee asked if the Historical Resources Commission had ever rejected an application for a historic district. The answer was no.
Taken together, this means that anyone can submit an application for a historic district to the Office of Historic Preservation, it’s very likely the application will be approved, and there’s no way for a local jurisdiction and property owners to stop it. If you choose to submit a comment to the OHP, I urge you to share the concern that this process could be abused to designate large swaths of our County historic without local consent, significantly impacting housing affordability and production."
The fact that one of the criteria used for the potential historic designation is that Baywood was “a commuter suburb, which was important in the pattern of history in the region” is laughable. Does anyone need to read more that to become skeptical of the whole effort?
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(23) comments
Members of the group opposed to the historic designation have called me racist, MAGA, anti-abortion, and anti-LBGQT+. It’s a lot, but not true on any of them. It seems when this group has a weak argument, the claims of racism and name calling come front and center, and that was very much on display yesterday. Historic designation protects the beautiful architectural history, changes to homes will codify the design guidelines that used to be in place by the city. ADUs, additions, remodeling will take place as always. For more information, please check out the Heritage Alliance website: smheritage.org.
Not So Common, I don’t have a lawn sign.
Not So Common, no thank you.
Connieuweiss, why is the Heritage Alliance attempting to incorporate an entire neighborhood as a historic district, whether each home is truly historical or not? Why do some folks who do not live in the neighborhood feel the need to force affected homeowners into a historical district? As someone recently said to me, just because something is old doesn’t make it historic.
You reference the Heritage Alliance site and when I do, I see instances where the words “may” and “should” are being used. Please note that “may” and “should” are also understood to mean “may not.” And recently, there was a published LTE author in favor of historic designation under the impression historic designation causes a loss in property values, in agreement with realtors and objective reporting.
The Heritage Alliance acknowledges there is red tape (although they try to soft-pedal it). Another historic designation supporter claimed there aren’t additional requirements unless the City revises the historic preservation ordinance to add it. Which they can do at any time, adding red tape. Without the historic district listing, there is no associated red tape.
Have folks browsed the lessredtape.com site, especially the FAQs section and homeowner stories section? Are there homeowner stories in smheritage.org about the joys of living in a historic district? I'd like to hear from those who didn’t choose to be in the district and what additional red tape or costs they've had to endure.
As for the SMBOS not taking a position, I’m sure this issue will come back to haunt those who want another term on the BOS or have other political aspirations. Meanwhile, if those against the historic district designation “lose” I’d recommend they take it to court if that’s a possibility, and nowadays, what isn’t?
Terrence, you’ve asked these questions before and I’ve answered what I can. Why don’t you write info@smheritage.org and ask to be included in an upcoming meeting.
Connieuweiss, a decidedly unsatisfying response. I guess the bigger question now is why you’re for a historical district if you appear to not understand the anticipated and unanticipated consequences.
As for smheritage.org and in this age of instant gratification I’m not sure I/we can afford to wait for another quarterly meeting to get answers. I’d prefer folks from, or support the Heritage Alliance to explain their motives.
Instead of the LRT website, I recommend visiting the State Office of Historic Presentation where you find factual information.
https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21237
they are desperate.
Yes, people have noticed the argument keeps changing as each false claim is debunked.
It is undeniable that Baywood has a racist heritage because of racial covenants (as does a lot of the mid Peninsula). These covenants have continued to influence neighborhood makeup even now, according to Mr. Hedge’s statistics (and “The Color of Law”). Pointing this out is not the same as calling the whole city racist. (I’m white and live in another city that was influenced by racial covenants.)
The past has zero influence on today's Bay Area racial makeup. Cities like Cupertino 70% Asian, Fremont 62% Asian show how demographics change. Had Asians felt San Mateo 94402 was the best city to raise their children and families, they would have found a way to make San Mateo their preferred destination.
I would not have been able to purchase my home in Baywood when it was first built as I am Jewish, but I’ve lived here 30 years and there’s now over a third non-white residents. I acknowledge the history but it doesn’t influence anything in our lives today. To indicate otherwise dilutes the real and present threat of racism in our country today.
I would not have been able to purchase my home in Baywood when it was first built as I am Jewish, but I’ve lived here 30 years and there’s now over a third non-white residents. I acknowledge the history but it doesn’t influence anything in our lives today. To indicate otherwise dilutes the real and present threat of racism in our country today.
You're repeating yourself, I heard you the first time. : )
Thank you for covering this story. A few corrections are necessary. First, if Baywood is designated as a historic district, Spanish Revival architecture is NOT mandated. There are many architectural styles in the district, and those will be welcome as well. Second, the Heritage Alliance is not “adamant” about withdrawing the nomination application. We simply declined a request to do so at the time.
It should also be noted that Supervisor Corzo and President Slocum did not contact the Heritage Alliance or Mayor Diaz Nash, and did not return phone calls or emails when I found out about the agenda item. The resolution had over three pages of identified factual errors. These are the hallmarks of a political hit job.
Councilmember Amourence Lee and Planning Commissioners John Ebneter and Seema Patel were in attendance and supported the resolution to oppose the Baywood Historic District. Is that appropriate for City representatives? These City representatives repeated unfounded claims of racism and segregation. That is the argument people use when it is the only argument they have.
Laurie H., thanks for your comment. But this doesn't answer my question as to why the Heritage Alliance, with members that don’t live in the neighborhood, trying to force Baywood homeowners into a historic district, whether they like it or not? Let’s face it, not everything old is historic.
The Heritage Alliance admits there’s more red tape and we all know more red tape entails higher costs. As for higher property values, there is no definitive evidence one way or another. Homeowners can individually apply for historical designation. So what’s in it for other homeowners other than more red tape and higher costs if they're stuck with a historic designation tag? It’s almost as if the Heritage Alliance is trying to get something for nothing. Or is there a hidden agenda? Perhaps an attempt to wrangle (more?) taxpayer-funded historic designation jobs, a la Sheriff’s civilian oversight?
Terence, You are correct. Not everything old is historic. You are not correct on your other points. The process is not forced. Historic preservation is a city, county, state, national, and international value. Evaluating an area for listing on the National Register of Historic Places is an academic exercise conducted by professionals (architectural historians). The district characteristics are evaluated against the standardized criteria developed over many years for state and federal regulations, starting with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Cities often use the same criteria.
Historic districts must meet specific criteria, including is whether the area is a) “associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history”; or b) whether the district was “associated with patterns of history deemed important, was associated with important persons or events, or embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction”; or c) that “represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.” https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/upload/NRB-15_web508.pdf
The district must have integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Baywood meets two of the criteria for listing (only one is required): it was a commuter suburb, which was important in the pattern of history in the region and the collection of intact, Colonial Revival architecture.
There may or may not be additional costs; it all depends on the City’s regulations and interpretation. Basically, only demolition, substantial demolition, or incompatible changes to the property visible from the street would require any analysis beyond what the City already does.
Chris Eckert, a realtor and property owner in Glazenwood (San Mateo Historic District), analyzed sales data for the last 10 years. Property appreciation and per-square-foot prices were substantially higher than adjacent Hayward Park. Most studies show historic districts have higher appreciation and home values.
Maybe the real hidden agenda is that of the construction contractor, condo developer, and mortgage broker who initiated the opposition using false information.
Or maybe the real UNHIDDEN agenda of “the opposition” is that you are infuriating them by trying to control them, against their will, dictating what they can or cannot do with their homes.
Laurie H., thanks for your response. I’d like to know your definition of “forced” because if we take the standard definition… You say the process is not forced yet if we review Seema’s comment below, it sounds like the Heritage Alliance, instead of following a local process, did an end around and went to a CA Office to push for a historic district. It appears homeowners cannot opt out which essentially forces property owners to be designated as a historic district, whether they want it or not. We can use “subjugate” or “compel” instead of “forced.” You say there may or may not be additional costs. The best case is $0. If there is no historic district designation, the additional costs are always $0.
I still don’t understand the resistance to allowing homeowners to individually apply for historic designation. Did a Baywood homeowner request historic designation, fail, and then decide they would get designation one way or another, regardless of how it affected everyone else? Why don’t homeowners, if they wish, follow historic change guidelines on their own? Or are they looking to get a National Register of Historic Places plaque for their home? (And would they get one if they’re in a historic district instead of a home?) It seems to me that no matter how you slice it, this historic district isn’t a “win” for homeowners that don’t opt in (if they had the option).
You say most studies show historic districts have higher appreciation and home values. Let’s say they go south. Would the Heritage Alliance pay the difference in sales price to an owner when and if they decide to sell? And how about a Heritage Alliance fund to reimburse homeowners for additional time and money spent dealing with more red tape and additional costs? It sounds like a win-win to me.
As for contractors, developers, and mortgage brokers having a hidden agenda, why would it make a difference to them? They'd profit regardless of historic designation, or not. In fact, they may make more profit from a historic designation due to increased costs and potentially specialized and more expensive materials.
Laurie's comment that "the process is not forced" wins the internet laugh of the day.
To be clear, I did not express a position on the resolution, I shared concerns about the state process. My comment can be viewed at the 3:25:05 timestamp here:
https://sanmateocounty.granicus.com/player/clip/1372?view_id=1&redirect=true
Full text of my comment:
"Good morning Members of the Board of Supervisors, my name is Seema Patel, I serve on San Mateo’s Planning Commission but I am speaking on my own behalf today.
San Mateo has a process for designating properties and districts historic. Instead of utilizing the local process, the San Mateo Heritage Alliance submitted an application to the CA Office of Historic Preservation to have the Baywood neighborhood listed as a historic district on the National Register of Historic Places. Anyone can submit an application for historic designation to the OHP, you don’t need to be the property owner or even reside in the same city as the property or district. There is no way for a local jurisdiction or property owners to veto the application - objection letters can be submitted, but the Historical Resources Commission can declare the property or district “eligible to be listed” over the objections, and eligible properties are treated the same as listed properties under federal and state law, including CEQA.
Surprisingly, the criteria for historic designation for a district is LESS strict than the criteria for an individual property. The president of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance has stated, “...most of the homes in Baywood do not rise to the level to be individually significant (that is a high bar)....” At the San Mateo information session an attendee asked if the Historical Resources Commission had ever rejected an application for a historic district. The answer was no.
Taken together, this means that anyone can submit an application for a historic district to the Office of Historic Preservation, it’s very likely the application will be approved, and there’s no way for a local jurisdiction and property owners to stop it. If you choose to submit a comment to the OHP, I urge you to share the concern that this process could be abused to designate large swaths of our County historic without local consent, significantly impacting housing affordability and production."
The fact that one of the criteria used for the potential historic designation is that Baywood was “a commuter suburb, which was important in the pattern of history in the region” is laughable. Does anyone need to read more that to become skeptical of the whole effort?
Howardsarin - Exactly! Thank you for succinctly pointing out the obvious.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.