Baywood can get insurance

Nov 19, 2024
Nov 19, 2024 Updated Apr 14, 2025
18

Editor,

The latest scare tactic from Less Red Tape, presented by Joe Volponi and Frank Elliott, claims that Baywood homeowners won’t be able to get insurance if the neighborhood is designated a historic district. This is simply false.

(18) comments

anna kuhre Nov 22, 2024 11:24am

The Baywood residents are an intelligent educated group of citizens. You really underestimate their intelligence if you think any resident of Baywood can be talked into signing a document under prosecution of any perjured statements. You are just upset because the vote is in regarding your limited influence to force people to agree with your misguided view point regarding their private properties and homes. Blanket historic districting do not work for all neighborhoods. It doesn't matter how much evidence has been made public but you still continue to try to discredit the reputation of good people who worked hard to build consensus. That is something SMHA failed to do. Your neighbors do not buy the syrupy sales pitch that you two gave at all of your talks. Rather then fight with you, they are choosing to assert their rights through they sworn statements to the state agency the OHP. Those signatures will never expire. No Consent No Historic!

Providing Feedback Nov 19, 2024 6:07pm

Laurie Hietter is missing the point with her desperate attempt to act like the “historic designation causes no problems.” The point in Joe Volponi’s article is that just because a home is treated a certain way today as renewal business is no guarantee that it would be treated the same way in the future when someone else tries to buy the home and is treated as a new risk. As well, underwriting guidelines can and do change regularly for both renewals and new business. Laurie’s few random calls to agents, who are mostly sales people, doesn’t change that. It’s the corporate risk departments that are really making the assessments.

anna kuhre Nov 22, 2024 11:07am

The signatures are sworn statements submitted by over 50% of Baywood residents, and they are still coming in. The signatures do not expire, and are good for any further proceedings on this historical matter. This process was approved by the OHP. The residents of Baywood have conviction and want a voice in whatever this small group of people, (SMHA) are trying to force on us. No Consent No Historic!

shawnfahrenbruch Nov 19, 2024 10:28am

Laurie, I know that you are aware of this letter that I received from my insurance agent. It was sent to City Council and you requested a copy from City Council.

From: Wesley xxxxx<(redacted).com>

Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 5:04 PM

To: shawn fahrenbruch.net

Subject: Re: (redacted) Parrot Dr historic home insurance concerns

Hello Mr. Fahrenbruch

As I mentioned in our previous conversation, homes part of a historical registry are ineligible for Nationwide coverage.

If (redacted) PARROTT DR, SAN MATEO, CA 94402, is entered into a historical registry during a policy term, the property would be ineligible for coverage at renewal.

Coverage would need to be found on another carrier , if one can be found it would likely have different coverages and premium.

Sincerely,

Wesley (redacted)

CA License Number (redacted)

Property and Casualty Agent

(redacted) Financial & Insurance Services

(redacted)

Laurie,

If you are flat out calling me a liar or this letter is a fake, I don't know what to tell you. If anyone wants to see the "un-redacted" version of this letter in person, just contact me. Obviously, I am not going to post the sensitive account information or agent information in public. But, I will show the letter in its entirety privately with anyone who is truly interested.

Read the fine print. It is not necessarily an issue of the house itself being in the historic district. The question to ask if whether your house's insurance is affected if it, itself, is deemed historic.

Connie Weiss Nov 19, 2024 1:45pm

Shawn, think about it - there are thousands of historic districts all over this country, including California. It makes no sense that insurance companies would snub all of these homes. We have not found anyone in the current San Mateo historic district of Glazenwood having difficulty insuring their homes. Since you don’t live in Baywood, nor do you live on Parrott Drive, this letter just doesn’t make sense in its entirety.

shawnfahrenbruch Nov 19, 2024 2:23pm

Connie, seriously? are you telling me I do not know where I live? I guarantee you that I live on Parrott Drive.

anna kuhre Nov 19, 2024 2:23pm

Connie: You are very good at calling people liars, when it suits you. Shawn Fahrenbruch does live on Parrott Drive. No Consent No Historic!

Connie Weiss Nov 19, 2024 3:49pm

My mistake on the street, I don’t have the word liar in my comment at all… we will decide as a neighborhood when we hear Baywood is eligible, so you might want to rethink your tag line.

LaurieHietter Nov 20, 2024 12:54pm

Shawn, I did not call you a liar. I am merely stating that the 6 or so agents I spoke with had a different take. None of them said there would be an issue obtaining or renewing insurance. Insurers, including Nationwide, made a distinction between an individually listed home and a home in a historic district. Of course things can change, but insurers are looking at the risk. They are more concerned with "big trees that may fall," a poorly maintained home, or remnant knob and tube wiring.

Terence Y Nov 19, 2024 8:46am

Thanks for your letter, Ms. Hietter. As expected, we knew a rebuttal would appear, especially since you’re the president of the San Mateo Heritage Alliance – the group initiating this hullabaloo. It appears you’re attempting to change the narrative while continuing to do nothing to address the bottom line 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. Instead you focus on an issue that wouldn’t be a part of the conversation had the Heritage Alliance not initially trampled on homeowner rights.

Meanwhile, the prudent course of action is to follow Karyl Eldridge’s, or Jon Mays’ proposal from over six months ago for how to proceed - 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 continue to feed neighborhood division when there’s no need to?

anna kuhre Nov 19, 2024 8:54am

No Consent No Historic!

LaurieHietter Nov 20, 2024 1:21pm

Terence, Baywood qualifies as a historic district, as identified 35 years ago. This is an academic exercise. Heritage Alliance did not bypass the homeowners. We held multiple meetings, sent many mailings, and went door-to-door where we found overwhelming support. It is Less Red Tape who are by passing the process. They demanded the initial nomination package before it was reviewed by the state and revised. They then went door-to-door presenting inaccurate information (you won't be able to change your windows, you won't be able to add a wheelchair ramp, you won't be able to modernize or expand your house, you will lose your property rights). The state will explain the nomination and ask the neighborhood. We are providing factual information. LRT is sowing division and scaring people.

anna kuhre Nov 20, 2024 1:46pm

Laurie , People who attended the cocktail parties hosted by the Nashes and held at the Nashes home felt pressured into supporting this historic district. The votes are in. The majority of Baywood residents do not want want this historic district forced on them, especially when they are happy with the way things are. SMHA failed to build consensus with the community. Why do you think the sworn statements are going into the state OHP like crazy? No one wants this unnecessary change, and they are choosing to protect their property rights. No Consent No Historic!

GasCar1956 Nov 20, 2024 3:32pm

I find your statement most concerning. While you have repeatedly accused others of impropriety, you now criticize a group for exercising their legal right to gather signatures simply because their views differ from yours. I suggest you demonstrate your own level of community support, which I understand is quite limited. The current situation is a direct result of your own actions, and the responsibility lies solely with you.

LaurieHietter Nov 22, 2024 11:01am

No, GasCar, that is not a correct assessment of what I wrote. The signature collection is premature, according to the state process and is based on an incomplete nomination. I am criticizing the group for presenting factually inaccurate information to scare people into signing their forms.

GasCar1956 Nov 22, 2024 5:02pm

Laurie, you are not the appropriate arbitrator of truth in this situation. It has come to my attention that the OHP has already approved the signature gathering process at this juncture.

Your claim regarding an incomplete application appears questionable. The fundamental facts of the matter will not change regardless of application completeness, and I question why the application remains incomplete. Perhaps this reflects poorly on your effort to establish the neighborhood's historic status.

If the application process is proving challenging, this raises legitimate concerns about Baywood's historic merit - contrary to what you and other advocates have repeatedly claimed about its clear eligibility. One would expect that if the historic status were as evident as suggested, the application would be thoroughly documented and complete by now.

Based on my observations over time, your statements have consistently lacked substantive factual support. Consequently, I, along with numerous others in our community, find it increasingly difficult to place confidence in your representations of the situation.

GasCar1956 Nov 20, 2024 2:53pm

Terence - there's no point in rehashing the Baywood application approach. At the last Council meeting, Andrew Ryan made it quite clear: Less Red Tape gathered more than 50% of homeowners' objection letters. Plain and simple.

Those continuing to advocate for Baywood's historic district designation are now demonstrably acting against the expressed will of the majority of Baywood homeowners. SMHA's refusal to forego their application, despite this clear majority opposition, has regrettably positioned them as adversaries to the very community they purport to serve. The SMHA's stubbornness will be remembered in Baywood's history books, and not in a flattering way. Shame, really.

Terence Y Nov 21, 2024 9:41am

Sincere appreciation, GasCar1956, for your response. I'll update my notes. As you state, SMHA's stubbornness will be remembered not just in Baywood's history books, but San Mateo's, and not in a flattering way. There's time to "fix" things but stubbornness and misplaced pride are very hard to overcome.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

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!