Preserving history in the right way

First of all, historic preservation is incredibly important for any community, particularly this one. Historic buildings are good and classical architecture is considered such for a reason. Historic buildings remind us of our past, while also ensuring unique and interesting architecture is left for others to enjoy and possibly emulate. History is where we learn more of ourselves and a place. It creates interest and generates ideas for us to improve as a society.

For too many years, the city of San Mateo has allowed for its historic inventory to languish without update. It is key to determine the value of its old buildings and historical areas and how they could relate to new and emerging needs. Historic preservation is very important but how it’s done should reflect the current values of the entire community.

The city’s recently passed general plan created a blueprint for historic preservation, yet that is only the beginning. An inventory is needed to identify architecturally, culturally and historically significant buildings, structures, sites and districts while determining ways to balance those key areas with other priorities such as ensuring affordability for all. Progress takes balance.

And yet, I fear any effort to discuss historic value in earnest will be immediately sucked into the morass created over the historic district process for Baywood. That any discussion of historic preservation must mean you are against development and progress. This is not entirely the fault of those seeking to preserve, but it is the current reality.

There are two areas of the city currently deemed historic — downtown and Glazenwood. Other areas certainly deserve consideration as well — including the areas with homes more than 100 years old or even nearing 150. However, the current battle, and it is a battle, over Baywood’s designation has pitted neighbors and longtime friends against each other and has drawn interest from outside the area including attorneys and even legislators. Its outside description as another YIMBY/NIMBY battle brings baggage. Unfairly or not, the battle has prevented the city from shedding its newly formed reputation as dysfunctional, which is inherently sad for a number of reasons but most profoundly because San Mateo was once known for its ability to get things done amicably. This seems to be no longer the case and, for that, the entire city suffers.

So what to do?

There has been discussion of a truce in Baywood over the historical designation effort, but this will not last forever. The effort to create the district has followed state law, which essentially says anyone can apply for an area to be designated as a historic district. There is a timeframe in which any home owner within the area can protest the designation once it’s made, and the designation could fail if more than half send in letters of protest. Even with a majority protest, the state could also determine that the properties are eligible for historic designation, which adds an additional layer of complexity.

The best option would be a halt, then a process in which the neighborhood is included in city’s historic inventory — along with every other neighborhood — to determine if any new status is warranted. In other words, get in line like everyone else. I don’t see that happening.

A better option would be sort of a hybrid in which the effort is paused until a vote of the 400 or so property owners can take place to determine the actual interest of those involved. If less than a majority support it, the effort is stopped. If more than a majority support it, the effort continues yet there could be some effort to modify the district based on where the opposition lies. Or better yet, the vote becomes advisory for the city inventory process. Any individual property owner seeking historic designation can always do so for themselves.

The current Baywood historic district process has been sullied and should be abandoned as it currently stands. Instead, it should fall in line with the city’s overall analysis as launched by the newly formed general plan. It is clear there is not neighborhood consensus on the current process and the situation has the potential to break out into the open and cause substantial harm to a very important and much-needed historical analysis for the entire city.

Jon Mays is the editor-in-chief of the Daily Journal. He can be reached at jon@smdailyjournal.com. Follow Jon on X @jonmays.