California is in the midst of a serious homeowner insurance crisis. Evidence of this is the exponential growth in applications to the California FAIR Plan (the insurer of last resort for individuals that can’t get coverage in the voluntary market).
Many companies have left the state entirely while some of the largest remaining companies have nonrenewed huge numbers of existing policies and stopped writing new business altogether. All these actions make homeowners insurance difficult, if not impossible, for individuals to get. Even if coverage is available, it has become extraordinarily expensive. For most people, their home is their most expensive asset and it is a scary proposition when they struggle to find ways to protect it.
There are many reasons companies are taking these actions. Catastrophe risk (particularly wildfire) is the obvious one. However, inflation has raised reconstruction costs everywhere and they have grown much more rapidly in California due to the extensive regulation of the construction sector. The specialized licenses required for contractors and professionals create ongoing labor shortages, delays in rebuilding and ultimately higher costs.
Aside from the above, one of the biggest factors driving insurers from the market is the cumbersome regulation imposed by the state. First, there is a very bureaucratic rate filing process that makes it difficult for carriers to get adequate prices in a timely fashion. When insurers can’t get adequate prices for the risks they are absorbing, their solution is not to write at all. Second, in the claims process as insurers are trying to rebuild a damaged home, California has specific legal and regulatory requirements such as environmental impact studies that delay the permitting process. The California Environmental Quality Act imposes additional costly layers of review, resulting in added delays and increased costs for required studies. Further, it may also impose possible mitigation measures in the event the construction project disturbs the habitat of certain insects, rodents, plants, etc. The law also subjects construction projects to lawsuits from parties with essentially immaterial interests, adding costly legal fees and more delays.
In a market where availability is already an issue exacerbated by the levels of bureaucracy; it makes no sense to impose the restrictions that come with historic districting. At a minimum, it severely restricts the improvements a homeowner can make, creates a more extensive approval process and ultimately lengthens the time required and cost to rebuild or remodel. This is the very thing that insurers are objecting to now. The possibility that a person could not insure their most valuable asset is alarming.
Recommended for you
Historic homes are often more costly to insure than modern homes because they generally are constructed with older, rarer and more expensive materials that aren’t common in modern homebuilding. Furthermore, historic homes are typically constructed using labor intensive methods that require specialized craftsman and can be slower than modern construction methods.
Even if you are able to insure your home today, that may not be the case going forward in a dynamic market. Insurance companies often have different underwriting rules for “renewal” business than they do for “new” business. Therefore, if a home has been covered by an insurer for a number of years, the agent may have latitude to treat it differently than a piece of “new” business with the same characteristics. In other words, if that same home were sold, and the new owners approached the very same carrier, they might get a very different answer. This is a problem all homeowners could face when they ultimately try to sell their home and the potential buyer can’t get coverage.
Also, since some companies have already said they would not renew a policy if it were in a historic district, carriers that accept business today could easily change their stance over time. There is a limit to the amount of exposure a single company can take on in a given area. If other companies pull out, a small number of remaining companies couldn’t afford to be the writer for all that is left. Once they see their competitors refusing to write this business, they would almost certainly tighten their stance.
There is a current movement to create a blanket designation on all homes in the Baywood neighborhood of San Mateo. In an already troubled market made worse by unwieldy regulation, if there is even the possibility that creating a historic district designation would either limit the availability or increase the cost of coverage, it just doesn’t make sense.
Joe Volponi has lived in San Mateo for 44 years and recently retired as CEO of the California Casualty Management Company after more than 40 years in the insurance industry. He has a Bachelor of Science in statistics and is a fellow in the Casualty Actuarial Society.
Connie Weiss: Are you saying that people do not have the right to organize and speak at council meetings simply because they disagree with you. Your arrogance cannot be so huge that you continue to support this historic district over the voices of the majority of Baywood residents. Mayor Lisa Nash is accountable to the voters, and her actions will always be under scrutiny by the people who voted her into office. She should conform to the highest standards and not participate in loop holes which allow her to be an exception and a non contributor in the very plan she and her husband are trying to force on everyone in the Baywood neighborhood. As soon as it became evident that the Nashes would be exempted from the historic district, many residents reversed their support. Baywood is a neighborhood of intelligent, educated, wealthy people with conviction, who are not going to be pushed around by a handful of arrogant initiators like Michael Nash and SMHA. We do not want people from other neighborhoods coming to Baywood and telling us what to say or do. SMHA polarized the neighborhood when they proceeded with this Historic District application without building consensus with the majority of their neighbors. Many historic districts are recinded in less than two years, after the residents find out all the complications that accompany this dubious honor. I have many new friends who value respecting the voices of all parties concerned, not just a privileged few. Connie, you and I were never friends, so I did not lose a thing. LRT is no scape goat for SMHA's and your bad behavior. No Consent...NO Historic!
Here we go again with Connie Weiss and a “new” entrant to the conversation, Wide Awake (who unsurprisingly sounds like an “old” entrant) trying to sell the historic designation they’re trying to saddle Baywood homeowners with. As in previous conversations...
The bottom line is that the Heritage Alliance submission bypassed homeowners (whether they like it or not) and will subjugate them to more red tape and more likely than not, increased costs. And now, potentially higher costs to obtain insurance, if they’re able to obtain coverage. More red tape and potential costs that wouldn’t be a part of the conversation had the Heritage Alliance not taken this questionable action. Meanwhile, the prudent course of action is to follow Karyl Eldridge’s, or Jon Mays’ proposal to withdraw the application and start again, educating Baywood homeowners on the pros and cons associated with historic designation and allowing them to vote on it. Why feed neighborhood division when there’s no need to? Or, as anna kuhre and Wattintheworld have proposed, help individual homeowners apply for historic designation.
Although we didn’t see eye to eye on Measure T, your insights here are absolutely spot on, Terence. It’s truly indicative of the broader discussion how Mrs. Weiss and Mrs. Hietter are brushing aside the concerns about homeowner insurance. Imagine thinking they know better than a seasoned CEO with 40 years in the insurance industry. Absolutely absurd!
GasCar1956, although we didn’t see eye to eye on Measure T, I sincerely hope your interpretation of Measure T is the path taken. My interpretation pointed to what I see as a potential loophole that may be exploited. I see parallels to the SMHA and their efforts to trample on homeowner rights.
If we assume the SMHA followed appropriate guidelines/regulations then it sounds like they’re exploiting a loophole that is currently not in the best interest for everyone involved. As with all legislation, whether we think they’re flawed or not, they’re open to be challenged via the judicial route. As for the possibility that SMHA will change their mind and choose neighborhood unity, I don’t see that happening. This issue has been ongoing for several years and their positions have hardened. At this point, I believe misplaced pride is taking precedence and they’re unwilling to compromise because they think compromise is a sign of weakness. What they don’t realize is that compromise is a sign of strength. Of course, in this current atmosphere… Depending upon the progression, I hope we don’t but I imagine the issue will potentially be settled by the courts. Same with Measure T. Have a great weekend.
BTW, remember how Connie and others, mostly on the left, IMO, attempt to guilt or bully folks into revealing their "real" identities (as if a username can be assumed to be real)? We see one of the reasons below as to why they'd want their information - to do background research and direct their personal attacks on "real" people and their families. Perhaps I should change my username to Connie Weis? Or Wider Awake?
Less Red Tape is to thank for the gross misinformation and fear mongering. Heritage Alliance has followed the state and national process precisely. There are thousands of historic districts which thrive and are considered jewels of their cities. But things got nasty around here when a condo developer and building contractor decided otherwise and formed Less Red Tape.
Stop disparaging my husband who has worked very hard in his profession while supporting both of our families. This is just your dirty tactic Connie because you are angry the SM Heritage Alliance has lost. No Consent...No Historic! No Consent...No Historic! No Consent...NO Historic!
Anna, I considered you and Jay friends where we simply disagreed with whether or not to become a historic district. Then you created Less Red Tape and paraded people into a city council meeting where you very publicly disparaged one of our neighbors, showing a poster of their home and saying how they skipped the process and now wanted others to abide by it. It was horrific in the amount of lies and misinformation. It was horrific that you took this very low and dirty step to start polarizing the neighborhood. I know it was not just my friendship you lost that evening but the friendship of many others. I actually feel sorry for you in the hole you have dug yourself in. I always thought you were better than this.
Connie Weiss and Wide Awake – other than your personal preferences and desire to control others, there are no tangible benefits you can tout about being in an historical district. As an example, here are two “benefits” taken from the SMHA website:
1. Local historic districts provide social and psychological benefits.
2. Historic districts are a tangible link to the past and a way to bring meaning to history and to people’s lives.
Seems like a lot of fluff; whereas, the concerns made in Joe Volponi’s article and by the LRT group are very tangible and real.
Additionally, while some of the homes in Baywood may be historic, in driving around, it appears the majority are not. Given that, why are you pushing this campaign and calling others liars when they are just pointing out the obvious.
1. Local historic districts protect the investments of owners and residents of historic properties.
2. Properties within local historic districts appreciate at rates greater than the local market overall.
They are on the list also even though I disagree the two you call out are “fluff”.
There are over 440 homes identified as contributors to a historic district in Baywood. That is not a small number, would be hard to drive through Baywood and not notice.
You may not want the historic district, Anna, but many residents do. Let the process play out. You can submit your objection once the state determines Baywood is eligible.
Yes that is the problem with Blanket Historic Districts. Everybody gets lumped into one category, even the plain little ranchers. No Consent. No Historic!
It's shocking (but not surprising?) that after all the propaganda from SMHA, that you still don't understand the basics of this. SMHA's misinformation confuses even their most strident supporters! There are not "440 homes identified as contributors". Per SMHA's nomination there are 350 "buildings" that SMHA claims are "contributors". The rest are "not" "contributors". Do you know what a contributor is?
A "non-contributor"??? How can we take anything you say serious Ms. Weiss? As one of SMHA's biggest cheerleaders..... it's astounding that you don't appear to understand the issues here. There are approximately 440 "homes" in the alleged "Baywood historic district"; not "contributors". And there's no evidence that "historic districts appreciate at rates greater than the local market overall". Realtor Chris Eckert -- the ONLY source SMHA cites for this "fact", is a realtor. Not an "expert" in valuation or historic districts, is he? I could find 10 realtors for every Chris Eckert that would say that issues around historic district designation would create confusion and uncertainty for potential buyers... and lower prices. But I digress..... It's unfortunate that some Baywood homeowners don't do their own research and instead believe everything spoon fed to them by SMHA (and even then still can't get it correct!), as well as by SMHA founder Michael Nash, husband of Mayor Lisa Diaz-Nash. And still call their neighbors liars, every chance they can.
Whatintheworld you are right! SMHA asked several top Baywood realtors to support them with a statement, and they all declined the invitation. Only Chris Eckert, who does not live in Baywood agreed to make a statement. Realtors do not like historic districts, for logical reasons.
Feedback--This is not about personal preference, it is about the law. There are tangible benefits for owners in historic districts, as Connie mentioned, as well as funding for repair and maintenance of historic homes (Mills Act, State Historic Resources tax credits in January). Anna's "no historic district" campaign will deprive the citizens of these important financial benefits. The insurance companies made a distinction between a designated historic home with a plaque and severe constraints (which do not exist in San Mateo) and a home in a historic district. They will insure homes in a historic district. The insurance issue is one more shriek of hysteria following the other false information promoted by Anna and Less Red Tape: you won't be able to remodel your house, your property values will go down, you won't be able to add a wheel chair ramp. What misinformation will they come up with next?
Keep it coming!!!!! When people stand up for their rights the initiators always try to discredit the opposition by calling them liars. Anyone who won't sign their own name to their comments has no ones respect. Grow a backbone and sign your real name. Don't hide behind a pseudonym.
The law? Homeowners may take advantage of the Mills Act and other "incentives" by nominating their individual properties for historic designation..... why force this on a non-consenting community of homeowners? The Mills Act, by the way, would have virtually no benefit for a long time property owner (i.e., Prop. 13 beneficiary versus a more recent purchaser), with the long time purchaser more likely to favor historic designation due to SMHA's fear mongering. So no "financial benefits" are being denied whatsoever as regards the opposition to SMHA's non-consensual movement.; they are all available via individual nomination. But proceed with caution! Mills Act requirements relate to interior as well as exterior renovations -- government officials will be able to come inside your house to subjectively decide if you've remodeled your home sufficiently, and if not, you could be subject to penalties. Fact. Regarding insurance... no one can predict what insurance companies will choose to do in the future. We know for certain, however, that they are fleeing California, every chance they get. Why give them another opportunity? SMHA assumes that, since they are insured today, that they will be insured tomorrow. Mr. Viola's guest perspective outlines well why insurance companies may change course in the future, and why those currently insured versus seeking coverage are very different. But I can't resist.... as to your claim of a "shriek of hysteria" ..... this concept is perfectly reflected in Keith Weber's April 28, 2023 perspective where he wrote: "One day your neighbor’s house is there. The next day it’s gone! Ripped asunder and reduced to rubble. The home had stood as a proud contributor to your neighborhood for almost 100 years. You find out the new buyers just “love” the neighborhood — yet appear acutely unconcerned about the attributes that define its character. They want a “new” house. They’re entitled. Tear downs of multimillion-dollar homes have become ironically trendy. And it is destroying our unique heritage neighborhoods." Mr. Weber's opinion was the original scare tactic of the SMHA. No homes have been torn down overnight. Just ask the owners of 415 Fairfax!
It seems Less Red Tape and Mr. Volponi thinks it’s best to destroy our historic homes because they are so well built that insurers are running away. This is ridiculous, and ignores the thousands of historic districts not only in California but across the nation. I, for one, am extremely disgusted with this dishonest dialogue and it’s time to call out the gross inaccuracies. I cherish my historic home and those surrounding it. We are extremely lucky to have a city with so much rich history with our historic architecture. We need to continue moving forward without erasing our past. An honest and truthful discussion is welcome. Misinformation is not.
Get your own individual Historic Designation and leave the good people of Baywood alone. Stop trying to force your values on your neighbors. You have already lost and you won't admit it!
FYI, Anna, historic preservation is a shared value in the City General Plan, the county, the U.S., and internationally. The U.S. Historic Preservation Act rules and regulations were established in 1966 (as amended) and clearly define the criteria under which a historic district is designated.
Less Red Tape members queried their insurance companies for new Historic Districts districts which the San Mateo Heritage Alliance is trying to force on us. Safeco and Nationwide and Hippo and some AAA agents said they will not renew in Historic Districts. Stop calling us liars. Stop saying there are no ramifications to in a historic district title. We do not want this honorarium. It will complicate our lives and we do not want to lose our insurance. The insurance industry has changed. Plus the neighborhood is canvassing at over 80% that they do not want this change. The votes are in and The SM Heritage Alliance lost big time.
More misinformation. Mr. Volponi may understand insurance but he is misinformed about a historic district in San Mateo. The insurance companies were queried about designation as a "historic home," rather than a home is a historic district. There is a difference. San Mateo Heritage Alliance queried the insurance companies and they said they would have no issue with the homes being in a historic district.The insurance companies already know the age of the home and the City of San Mateo does not require specific materials or construction methods.
Remember, the homes in Glazenwood Historic District in San Mateo are insured.
Wide Awake, When any resident of Glazenwood goes to sell their home, the buyers will not be able to get insurance. The insurance companies do not want the added liability. Purchases are falling out of escrow because they cannot get insurance to the tune of around 10%. Historic Districts are a liability when it comes to renewal and selling your home. Get your own individual Historic designation and leave the rest of us alone!!! We do not want any more Red Tape.
So far Nationwide, Safeco and Hippo and others stated that they will not renew if Baywood becomes a historic district! Our agents have even checked with their underwriters, and the answer is they will not renew in a historic district. Time for the San Mateo Heritage Alliance to stop forcing their neighbors into a historic district against our will. No Consent! No Historic! No Consent! No Historic! No Consent No Historic!
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!
(25) comments
Connie Weiss: Are you saying that people do not have the right to organize and speak at council meetings simply because they disagree with you. Your arrogance cannot be so huge that you continue to support this historic district over the voices of the majority of Baywood residents. Mayor Lisa Nash is accountable to the voters, and her actions will always be under scrutiny by the people who voted her into office. She should conform to the highest standards and not participate in loop holes which allow her to be an exception and a non contributor in the very plan she and her husband are trying to force on everyone in the Baywood neighborhood. As soon as it became evident that the Nashes would be exempted from the historic district, many residents reversed their support. Baywood is a neighborhood of intelligent, educated, wealthy people with conviction, who are not going to be pushed around by a handful of arrogant initiators like Michael Nash and SMHA. We do not want people from other neighborhoods coming to Baywood and telling us what to say or do. SMHA polarized the neighborhood when they proceeded with this Historic District application without building consensus with the majority of their neighbors. Many historic districts are recinded in less than two years, after the residents find out all the complications that accompany this dubious honor. I have many new friends who value respecting the voices of all parties concerned, not just a privileged few. Connie, you and I were never friends, so I did not lose a thing. LRT is no scape goat for SMHA's and your bad behavior. No Consent...NO Historic!
Here we go again with Connie Weiss and a “new” entrant to the conversation, Wide Awake (who unsurprisingly sounds like an “old” entrant) trying to sell the historic designation they’re trying to saddle Baywood homeowners with. As in previous conversations...
The bottom line is that the Heritage Alliance submission bypassed homeowners (whether they like it or not) and will subjugate them to more red tape and more likely than not, increased costs. And now, potentially higher costs to obtain insurance, if they’re able to obtain coverage. More red tape and potential costs that wouldn’t be a part of the conversation had the Heritage Alliance not taken this questionable action. Meanwhile, the prudent course of action is to follow Karyl Eldridge’s, or Jon Mays’ proposal to withdraw the application and start again, educating Baywood homeowners on the pros and cons associated with historic designation and allowing them to vote on it. Why feed neighborhood division when there’s no need to? Or, as anna kuhre and Wattintheworld have proposed, help individual homeowners apply for historic designation.
Although we didn’t see eye to eye on Measure T, your insights here are absolutely spot on, Terence. It’s truly indicative of the broader discussion how Mrs. Weiss and Mrs. Hietter are brushing aside the concerns about homeowner insurance. Imagine thinking they know better than a seasoned CEO with 40 years in the insurance industry. Absolutely absurd!
GasCar1956, although we didn’t see eye to eye on Measure T, I sincerely hope your interpretation of Measure T is the path taken. My interpretation pointed to what I see as a potential loophole that may be exploited. I see parallels to the SMHA and their efforts to trample on homeowner rights.
If we assume the SMHA followed appropriate guidelines/regulations then it sounds like they’re exploiting a loophole that is currently not in the best interest for everyone involved. As with all legislation, whether we think they’re flawed or not, they’re open to be challenged via the judicial route. As for the possibility that SMHA will change their mind and choose neighborhood unity, I don’t see that happening. This issue has been ongoing for several years and their positions have hardened. At this point, I believe misplaced pride is taking precedence and they’re unwilling to compromise because they think compromise is a sign of weakness. What they don’t realize is that compromise is a sign of strength. Of course, in this current atmosphere… Depending upon the progression, I hope we don’t but I imagine the issue will potentially be settled by the courts. Same with Measure T. Have a great weekend.
BTW, remember how Connie and others, mostly on the left, IMO, attempt to guilt or bully folks into revealing their "real" identities (as if a username can be assumed to be real)? We see one of the reasons below as to why they'd want their information - to do background research and direct their personal attacks on "real" people and their families. Perhaps I should change my username to Connie Weis? Or Wider Awake?
Less Red Tape is to thank for the gross misinformation and fear mongering. Heritage Alliance has followed the state and national process precisely. There are thousands of historic districts which thrive and are considered jewels of their cities. But things got nasty around here when a condo developer and building contractor decided otherwise and formed Less Red Tape.
Stop disparaging my husband who has worked very hard in his profession while supporting both of our families. This is just your dirty tactic Connie because you are angry the SM Heritage Alliance has lost. No Consent...No Historic! No Consent...No Historic! No Consent...NO Historic!
Anna, I considered you and Jay friends where we simply disagreed with whether or not to become a historic district. Then you created Less Red Tape and paraded people into a city council meeting where you very publicly disparaged one of our neighbors, showing a poster of their home and saying how they skipped the process and now wanted others to abide by it. It was horrific in the amount of lies and misinformation. It was horrific that you took this very low and dirty step to start polarizing the neighborhood. I know it was not just my friendship you lost that evening but the friendship of many others. I actually feel sorry for you in the hole you have dug yourself in. I always thought you were better than this.
Connie Weiss and Wide Awake – other than your personal preferences and desire to control others, there are no tangible benefits you can tout about being in an historical district. As an example, here are two “benefits” taken from the SMHA website:
1. Local historic districts provide social and psychological benefits.
2. Historic districts are a tangible link to the past and a way to bring meaning to history and to people’s lives.
Seems like a lot of fluff; whereas, the concerns made in Joe Volponi’s article and by the LRT group are very tangible and real.
Additionally, while some of the homes in Baywood may be historic, in driving around, it appears the majority are not. Given that, why are you pushing this campaign and calling others liars when they are just pointing out the obvious.
How about
1. Local historic districts protect the investments of owners and residents of historic properties.
2. Properties within local historic districts appreciate at rates greater than the local market overall.
They are on the list also even though I disagree the two you call out are “fluff”.
There are over 440 homes identified as contributors to a historic district in Baywood. That is not a small number, would be hard to drive through Baywood and not notice.
No Consent. No Historic!
You may not want the historic district, Anna, but many residents do. Let the process play out. You can submit your objection once the state determines Baywood is eligible.
Yes that is the problem with Blanket Historic Districts. Everybody gets lumped into one category, even the plain little ranchers. No Consent. No Historic!
It's shocking (but not surprising?) that after all the propaganda from SMHA, that you still don't understand the basics of this. SMHA's misinformation confuses even their most strident supporters! There are not "440 homes identified as contributors". Per SMHA's nomination there are 350 "buildings" that SMHA claims are "contributors". The rest are "not" "contributors". Do you know what a contributor is?
A "non-contributor"??? How can we take anything you say serious Ms. Weiss? As one of SMHA's biggest cheerleaders..... it's astounding that you don't appear to understand the issues here. There are approximately 440 "homes" in the alleged "Baywood historic district"; not "contributors". And there's no evidence that "historic districts appreciate at rates greater than the local market overall". Realtor Chris Eckert -- the ONLY source SMHA cites for this "fact", is a realtor. Not an "expert" in valuation or historic districts, is he? I could find 10 realtors for every Chris Eckert that would say that issues around historic district designation would create confusion and uncertainty for potential buyers... and lower prices. But I digress..... It's unfortunate that some Baywood homeowners don't do their own research and instead believe everything spoon fed to them by SMHA (and even then still can't get it correct!), as well as by SMHA founder Michael Nash, husband of Mayor Lisa Diaz-Nash. And still call their neighbors liars, every chance they can.
Whatintheworld you are right! SMHA asked several top Baywood realtors to support them with a statement, and they all declined the invitation. Only Chris Eckert, who does not live in Baywood agreed to make a statement. Realtors do not like historic districts, for logical reasons.
Feedback--This is not about personal preference, it is about the law. There are tangible benefits for owners in historic districts, as Connie mentioned, as well as funding for repair and maintenance of historic homes (Mills Act, State Historic Resources tax credits in January). Anna's "no historic district" campaign will deprive the citizens of these important financial benefits. The insurance companies made a distinction between a designated historic home with a plaque and severe constraints (which do not exist in San Mateo) and a home in a historic district. They will insure homes in a historic district. The insurance issue is one more shriek of hysteria following the other false information promoted by Anna and Less Red Tape: you won't be able to remodel your house, your property values will go down, you won't be able to add a wheel chair ramp. What misinformation will they come up with next?
Keep it coming!!!!! When people stand up for their rights the initiators always try to discredit the opposition by calling them liars. Anyone who won't sign their own name to their comments has no ones respect. Grow a backbone and sign your real name. Don't hide behind a pseudonym.
The law? Homeowners may take advantage of the Mills Act and other "incentives" by nominating their individual properties for historic designation..... why force this on a non-consenting community of homeowners? The Mills Act, by the way, would have virtually no benefit for a long time property owner (i.e., Prop. 13 beneficiary versus a more recent purchaser), with the long time purchaser more likely to favor historic designation due to SMHA's fear mongering. So no "financial benefits" are being denied whatsoever as regards the opposition to SMHA's non-consensual movement.; they are all available via individual nomination. But proceed with caution! Mills Act requirements relate to interior as well as exterior renovations -- government officials will be able to come inside your house to subjectively decide if you've remodeled your home sufficiently, and if not, you could be subject to penalties. Fact. Regarding insurance... no one can predict what insurance companies will choose to do in the future. We know for certain, however, that they are fleeing California, every chance they get. Why give them another opportunity? SMHA assumes that, since they are insured today, that they will be insured tomorrow. Mr. Viola's guest perspective outlines well why insurance companies may change course in the future, and why those currently insured versus seeking coverage are very different. But I can't resist.... as to your claim of a "shriek of hysteria" ..... this concept is perfectly reflected in Keith Weber's April 28, 2023 perspective where he wrote: "One day your neighbor’s house is there. The next day it’s gone! Ripped asunder and reduced to rubble. The home had stood as a proud contributor to your neighborhood for almost 100 years. You find out the new buyers just “love” the neighborhood — yet appear acutely unconcerned about the attributes that define its character. They want a “new” house. They’re entitled. Tear downs of multimillion-dollar homes have become ironically trendy. And it is destroying our unique heritage neighborhoods." Mr. Weber's opinion was the original scare tactic of the SMHA. No homes have been torn down overnight. Just ask the owners of 415 Fairfax!
It seems Less Red Tape and Mr. Volponi thinks it’s best to destroy our historic homes because they are so well built that insurers are running away. This is ridiculous, and ignores the thousands of historic districts not only in California but across the nation. I, for one, am extremely disgusted with this dishonest dialogue and it’s time to call out the gross inaccuracies. I cherish my historic home and those surrounding it. We are extremely lucky to have a city with so much rich history with our historic architecture. We need to continue moving forward without erasing our past. An honest and truthful discussion is welcome. Misinformation is not.
Get your own individual Historic Designation and leave the good people of Baywood alone. Stop trying to force your values on your neighbors. You have already lost and you won't admit it!
FYI, Anna, historic preservation is a shared value in the City General Plan, the county, the U.S., and internationally. The U.S. Historic Preservation Act rules and regulations were established in 1966 (as amended) and clearly define the criteria under which a historic district is designated.
Are there guidelines on how to force it on honest citizens who chose to opt out? No Consent. No Historic!
Less Red Tape members queried their insurance companies for new Historic Districts districts which the San Mateo Heritage Alliance is trying to force on us. Safeco and Nationwide and Hippo and some AAA agents said they will not renew in Historic Districts. Stop calling us liars. Stop saying there are no ramifications to in a historic district title. We do not want this honorarium. It will complicate our lives and we do not want to lose our insurance. The insurance industry has changed. Plus the neighborhood is canvassing at over 80% that they do not want this change. The votes are in and The SM Heritage Alliance lost big time.
More misinformation. Mr. Volponi may understand insurance but he is misinformed about a historic district in San Mateo. The insurance companies were queried about designation as a "historic home," rather than a home is a historic district. There is a difference. San Mateo Heritage Alliance queried the insurance companies and they said they would have no issue with the homes being in a historic district.The insurance companies already know the age of the home and the City of San Mateo does not require specific materials or construction methods.
Remember, the homes in Glazenwood Historic District in San Mateo are insured.
Wide Awake, When any resident of Glazenwood goes to sell their home, the buyers will not be able to get insurance. The insurance companies do not want the added liability. Purchases are falling out of escrow because they cannot get insurance to the tune of around 10%. Historic Districts are a liability when it comes to renewal and selling your home. Get your own individual Historic designation and leave the rest of us alone!!! We do not want any more Red Tape.
So far Nationwide, Safeco and Hippo and others stated that they will not renew if Baywood becomes a historic district! Our agents have even checked with their underwriters, and the answer is they will not renew in a historic district. Time for the San Mateo Heritage Alliance to stop forcing their neighbors into a historic district against our will. No Consent! No Historic! No Consent! No Historic! No Consent No Historic!
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.