Editor,
Andrew Ryan’s guest perspective, “Hijacking history in Baywood” contains numerous misrepresentations of facts that Less Red Tape keeps pushing onto residents. As a busy engineer, he may not have taken time to truly research the truth as opposed to the misinformation being spewed out by Less Red Tape.
Here are some facts to consider:
Baywood was important in development of San Mateo as a commuter suburb and for the intact collection of prewar homes with exceptional integrity. These neighborhoods are being decimated by incompatible renovations.
Note that historic preservation is not about “freezing in amber” or making museums. Many properties in Baywood have been thoughtfully remodeled. That is the goal.
The State Office of Historic Preservation determines whether the district is eligible for listing before asking the property owners if they support or object to the nomination. Note that the city is in charge of historic resources. Their ordinance currently only applies to downtown and Glazenwood districts, which is not unwieldy at all.
For facts, please visit our city’s historic resources site (cityofsanmateo.org/4775/Historic-Resources) or the Heritage Alliance site (smheritage.org).
Connie Weiss
San Mateo
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!
Only subscribers can view and post comments on articles.
Already a subscriber? Login Here
Sorry, an error occurred.
Already Subscribed!
Cancel anytime
Thank you .
Your account has been registered, and you are now logged in.
Check your email for details.
Submitting this form below will send a message to your email with a link to change your password.
An email message containing instructions on how to reset your password has been sent to the email address listed on your account.
No promotional rates found.
Secure & Encrypted
Thank you.
Your gift purchase was successful! Your purchase was successful, and you are now logged in.
| Rate: | |
| Begins: | |
| Transaction ID: |
A receipt was sent to your email.
(11) comments
Ms. Weiss, you continue to 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.
I’d recommend folks read/re-read Andrew Ryan’s guest perspective and associated comments. A curated assortment of my responses is provided below…
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.
If increased property values is what the San Mateo Heritage Alliance believes, Heritage members should have no problems providing additional funds to maintain historic homes as well as paying the difference in sales price to an owner when and if they decide to sell. Let’s not forget reimbursing the homeowner for additional time and money spent dealing with more red tape. Instead of only talking about increased value, how about the Heritage Alliance standing behind their assertions by putting skin in the game rather than using misinformation and disingenuous statements. Why wouldn’t the Heritage Alliance be willing to do that? It’s a win-win.
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.
Terence, unlike Less Red Tape, Heritage Alliance is looking to be truthful and transparent with residents, as is the city. As you know, nothing is set in stone, but as residents and voters, we have the power to ensure our historic resources are protected without undue burden on those of us lucky enough to call one of these historic assets our home.
Connieuweiss, thanks for the response, but 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?
For those who feel their home is historic, it’s my understanding they can apply individually for a historic designation. For a historic home, there’s obviously additional red tape, as the Heritage Alliance has admitted and there are no guarantees there won’t be even more red tape and costs once a designation is foisted on homeowners. Why introduce red tape and undue burden on those who don’t have a historic home in the neighborhood?
I can’t help but think the Heritage Alliance has a hidden agenda. Many, including myself, have asked simple questions and we get the run around and the same non-answer answers attempting to change the narrative or sidestep the issues. That’s definitely not being transparent. As for being truthful, one can be truthful, but also disingenuous. That’s not being transparent, either.
Terence, to respond to your comment that those who feel their home is historic can apply individually for historic designation, the criteria for individual eligibility is stricter than the criteria for a district. There may be folks who want their own home to be designated historic, but don't meet the bar. Applying as a district would provide a path to historic designation for homeowners whose properties don't meet the bar individually. 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), but the whole is greater than the sum of its parts."
https://nextdoor.com/p/kJk99kG4JcJT/c/1053395330?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=1708755503745
Seema, thank you for the response and the clarifications on historic designation. To me, it sounds like folks who may not live in the neighborhood want to force folks in the neighborhood into historic district designation to make it easier for some who think their homes are historic (even though their homes are not since they’ve already “failed” to meet the bar)? This sounds like an end-around the wishes of Baywood homeowners and debatably underhanded. As someone recently said to me, just because something is old doesn’t make it historic.
Unfortunately Connie, SMHA has in my view done a pretty lousy job in terms of truth and transparency. Had it cared about transparency, SMHA would have engaged the entire community in deciding to move forward, or not. Instead, a small group of homeowners -- all of whom have already remodeled their homes I believe, so they are far less impacted -- want to have more say, via implementation of restrictions , than the actual homeowners. To me, that's just absolutely insane! Homeowners are already encumbered with so many restrictions and SMHA wants to add layer upon layer through its open advocacy for the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Rehabilitation - SMHA calls it the "gold standard" of preservation guidelines -- to apply in a Baywood Historic District. This would be disastrous to the community, and its time to come off the sidelines to stop this. Even a casual review of the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines should give everyone pause, because they touch upon all aspects of a home, not just the facade as the SMHA has been claiming is only impacted.
Terence Y - Your sage comments are spot on and an accurate reflection of this situation. Thank you for taking the time to provide them!
Please see above, Terence may be a sage, but he is parroting too much misinformation from Less Red Tape.
So above, when I wrote many have asked simple questions and we get the run around and the same non-answer answers attempting to change the narrative or sidestep the issues? Well it appears Connieuweiss has not provided any answers but is now using an “attack the messenger” tactic.
Please, Connieuweiss, if you’re unable to answer a few simple questions, get help from any/all other historic designation supporters to help out. Meanwhile, I’ll save this comment thread for the next time and cut/paste bits and portions as necessary until we get more than non-answer answers. Or the hidden agenda is exposed.
Since you brought it up, have you 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. Perhaps I need to browse the site in depth to add more simple questions people may want answers to. Not non-answer answers, honest non-disingenuous answers.
BTW, Providing Feedback only remarked I provided sage comments but if you consider me a sage, I thank you, but I can't take full credit. Even I didn't think the Supreme Court would correct their incorrect Roe v. Wade decision from years ago and send abortion decisions back to the states, where it should always have been.
Terence, I take back my good natured “sage” comment. My great grandmother died from an illegal abortion, I am deeply pro-choice as I believe no woman should die because some people think it’s ok to control a uterus.
Connieuweiss, I can understand you taking back your “sage” comment and I’m not offended. What I can’t understand (and am a bit offended) is that there is a Heritage Alliance, with other members/supporters posting to the DJ, and yet nobody is willing to help answer a few simple questions. Currently, you appear to be the only one brave enough to engage in a discussion (although, IMO, not very fruitful). Why the reticence from the alliance to provide answers? Is there a hidden agenda? Is there a push for a historic designation panel, akin to the Sheriff’s oversight board, that will waste more taxpayer money? No answers beget more questions…
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.