Editor,
As Keith Weber’s letter published June 28 shows (“Correcting the record”), the San Mateo Heritage Alliance is getting increasingly desperate with its lies, perhaps because they know historic preservation of private homes without owner consent has no popular base in San Mateo, and the more that people learn about it, the more they dislike it.
Mr. Weber says in his letter: “National Register listing conveys a level of national regard and respect, while imposing no restrictions, regulations or demands on any property owner.” This statement is a falsehood contradicted by the city’s own FAQ page on Historic Districts (cityofsanmateo.org/4784/Historic-Districts---Frequently-Asked-Qu), which lays out all the ways projects in historic districts will get more expensive and difficult — forcing homeowners to pay for architectural historians, use certain materials/finishes, and exposing homeowners to CEQA regulations and potential lawsuits.
Mr. Weber is a longtime member of the SMHA and often involved in city planning, so he understands the laws and regulations regarding historic properties. Yet, he chooses to be deceptive. Why, I wonder?
San Mateo: Don’t buy the lie. And to the SMHA I would say this: Perhaps if your ideas were actually good for the citizens of San Mateo, you wouldn’t need to resort to deception to make them seem more palatable.
Andrew Ryan
San Mateo
The letter writer is a Baywood homeowner.
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.
(37) comments
Terrence Y - as you are a spokesperson for the Less Red Tape group, is it true what folks are saying? There are growing rumors being circulated that Amourence Lee, Rick Bonilla, and a few surrogates are pushing hard on the LRT group to start a recall? And their motivation is retribution? or they are angry that the public has rejected their toxic politics and they are grasping to figure out how to recover? As a spokesperson for LRT, can you confirm or deny the rumors? Is LRT really considering to initiate a recall? Ia this just an attention ploy? Does LRT really want to be affiliated with Amourence Lee's toxic politics?
Taso, it sounds like you’re getting paranoid. I have no connection to the Less Red Tape group (you’ll have to take my word for it and if you don’t, so be it) although I do appreciate what LRT is saying and doing – trying to retain homeowner rights that the San Mateo Heritage Alliance is attempting to undermine. Since you brought up Less Red Tape, I’d encourage folks to browse the lessredtape.com site, especially the FAQs section and homeowner stories section. And, as desired, complete, and send, attached petitions and form letters and donations. I notice there are no homeowner stories in smheritage.org about the joys of living in a historic district. I'd also 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.
And speaking of additional red tape and costs, the San Mateo Heritage Alliance site (smheritage.org) acknowledges there is red tape (although they try to soft-pedal the red tape). A previous historic designation supporter claimed there aren’t additional requirements unless the City revises the historic preservation ordinance to add it. Which the city can do at any time, adding red tape and additional costs. Without the historic district listing, there is no associated red tape or additional costs. BTW, if you have any pull with the SMHA, you may want to have them address Myth #2 and let us know what is the cache (sic) that sets historic designation apart?
As for toxic, many would say that the SMHA attempting to take away homeowner rights is a toxic issue. You and Connie and the SMHA seem to be okay continuing to push this toxic issue and attempting to smear LRT so why would we listen to you about who or what is “toxic”?
Now that I’ve answered your questions, perhaps you can return the favor… Do you know when the SMHA decided to trample on homeowner rights? Was it before or after their application? Once they knew they would trample on homeowner rights, why are they continuing to do so, dividing the neighborhood and damaging SMHA’s reputation? Why do you feel the need to attack our dear readers because they object to having their property rights trampled on?
To add to your paranoia, wouldn’t it be amusing (a San Mateo Twilight Zone moment, if you will) if I were your or Connie’s neighbor, or best friend, or a friend of a friend, or someone you each interact with on a regular or irregular basis? Sleep tight.
Remind me, who was it who sent an email (from an official campaign account) encouraging people to come to the Dec 2022 City Council reorganization meeting and demand that the Council delay the Mayoral vote, resulting in San Mateo receiving negative press on a national scale? And who was it who (loudly) interrupted those proceedings to announce a notice of intent to recall? 🤔
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusation_in_a_mirror
Ah, alas, I do recall those infamous days.
How can we forget the infamous Amourence Lee staged Insurrection at City Hall where she held the entire city hostage in suffrage while inciting surrogates to repeatedly launch acts of non-physical violence until her demands of being crowned queen were met.
Ah, alas, I do recall those infamous days.
How can we forget the weeks of narcissistic turmoil with the final act being the night of her forced coronation, and afterwards where she proudly communicated her top priority as queen in a public message displayed as a photo-op on a city curb wearing the demonic power colors of red and black.
Ah, alas, I do recall those infamous days.
And how can we forget the disastrous year-long tenure that was and is now recorded as the worst mayorship in the city’s 130-year history.
Ah, alas, I do recall those infamous days.
And how can we forget the Amourence Lee Envelope-Gate, falsehoods, toxic politics, and the latest Crown Castle CORA scandal regarding cell towers.
And how can we forget the San Mateo Recall of Amourence Lee where goodness clipped the wings of that fear mongering dragon, and who is now trying to figure out what went wrong in the tanking of her political aspirations which were forever tarnished by her own doing.
And while difficult as it may seem, we must all find a way to forget this dark cloud of memories and move on to brighter more positive visions.
Ironically, while walking through Central Park the other day, I overheard some children who were enjoying the playground and they were singing a song I had first heard as a child --- it was a tune from Wizard of Oz that started with the phrase, “Ding-Dong”. Things are looking up.
Ah, yes, Taso with another throwaway comment giving us the runaround. Hey Taso, I think you missed a spot. Now why is the SMHA trampling homeowner rights and when did they know they were going to? And why are they continuing to do so? Enquiring minds want to know.
Terrence Y – I didn’t intend for my simple questions to cause such consternation. I can see you put a lot of thought into your reply, and I can appreciate how challenging this may have been.
All this back-and-forth has caused me to think about forming a new “healing support group” to help lower the heat and tension caused by opinionated differences. I came up with a catchy name of LRT - Less Red Face.
What about you and I meet for coffee, and we can discuss bylaws, membership, etc.? You pick the spot, date, and time and I will happily buy the coffee and any pastries you fancy. Heck, bring some friends who you could use some LRF.
Taso – you give yourself too much credit. I didn’t need to put much thought into my reply because thus far, you haven’t posed much of a challenge. Why, you ask? If you ask your friend, Connie, she’ll tell you that my reply is a copy/paste to her previous attempts at giving us the runaround. Also. I see that, like Connie, you’re afraid to answer a few simple questions. It’s as if you’re following the path Connie has attempted and failed at. We’ve already got Connie’s number and if you’re Connie-lite, you’re not bringing anything new to the table (although you have taken us on a few trips, wink wink).
As for meeting for coffee to discuss things, are you sure we haven’t already met for coffee, individually or in a group setting? Besides, if you’re scared of answering a few simple questions now, what difference would it make if we met (again?) in person? It’d be a waste of time. Kind of like the waste of time you spent thinking about a support group and developing your throwaway comment to Seema when in a much shorter amount of time you could have answered a few simple questions. I’d recommend you bring some friends to join the DJ but if they’re also scared of answering a few simple questions, they’ll have your same weaknesses.
Terence, your questions have been asked and answered many times. I also invited you to have a personal conversation with Laurie Hietter, President of Heritage Alliance. But you have made it clear it is not information you are seeking but harassment, and it is now very old. Time for you to move on.
Connie, if you answered my questions, I wouldn’t need to keep asking. Since you insist they’ve been answered please remind us of the answers so any latecomers will be educated. Your actions, or lack thereof, will decide whether we move on or not. Or is it your intent to not provide information and answers, but more throwaway and runaround comments? Because that got very old, and it’s still very old.
As for a personal conversation, did Ms. Hietter consent to the in-person meeting being taped and transcribed? If yes, that might provide incentive but I’m perfectly happy with transparency via the DJ. I’m not the only interested party with questions and there aren’t any obstacles to providing lengthy responses, from you or Ms. Hietter. But if Ms. Hietter is not willing to answer a few simple questions, it’d be a waste of time. Kind of like the waste of time you’ve spent on our numerous interactions. If it’s easier, perhaps Ms. Hietter can add a section in the Heritage Alliance site to answer my questions and those submitted by DJ contributors or other interested parties.
Terence, the comments here are quite revealing, exposing the SMHA crowd in a rather unflattering light. The SMHA and our mayor, who seems quite involved behind the scenes, often invite folks for a "coffee" where they tend to minimize the risks and downsides while making promises like "you will pay less property taxes." A lot of these claims turn out to be either outright fabrications or grossly exaggerated. It's common knowledge that vocal types like Taso are vehemently against any changes in the city and will go to great lengths to oppose them.
Terrence - Y are you so angry and frustrated that CA regulations allow for historic preservation? Shouldn't your anger be directed to the State instead of law abiding citizens? As to your other question, well, I would have to agree with you that much like all that i have read here, it did not leave a lasting impression. I don't know a Terrance - Y, well, it is possible you are an imposter hiding under a pseudo name. That would explain a lot. Happy Swirling.
Ah, yes, Taso with another throwaway comment giving us the runaround instead of answering a few simple questions? A Connie-lite move. As for angry and frustrated, why are you and Connie/SMHA angry and frustrated at homeowners who don’t want their homeowner rights trampled on? Their responses sound more than reasonable to me. And as for not knowing me, are you sure? Like you, I use a nickname. Happy Teddy Bear Picnic Day.
WAIT A MINUTE -- Y maybe I have seen you - was it on TV? You don't by chance have a brother named Phillip? -- and Canadian roots? OMG - I found your show truly funny. Keep up the good humor and Less Red Face. How exciting to have a another celebrity in SM.
If you are seeking some fun entertainment, this thread has it all. The characters in this act are unique and truly special. There is a bit of Pretending Feedback mixed with Pining Feedback, and someone in a car from an era past where the tailpipe is emitting toxic fumes to the front of the vehicle fogging up the windshield making it hard for the car's driver to see. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man's fears, and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call, The San Mateo Twilight Zone.
This is too funny. Hey Providing Feedback and GasCar1956, I appreciate your comments but I think one or both of you caused a short circuit and broke Tasso. I hope you both had a great 4th of July. Keep those comments coming.
A good example of the vast difference between an "this person's opinion" and a "factual statement". Mr. Weber statement in his letter is a fact that the “National Register listing conveys a level of national regard and respect, while imposing no restrictions, regulations or demands on any property owner.” And this person's opinion of that fact is just that - an opinion with no evidence to the contrary. Given this is the 4th of July - we celebrate the freedom's we enjoy of being able to express "opinions" even if not supported by facts. Thank you to those who sacrificed so that we can all freely express our thoughts based on feelings freely as opinions. And thank you to Mr. Weber for his factual statements hoping to enlighten us all, whether we choose to accept the facts or not.
It baffles me how you mix up facts with opinions. Andrew Ryan wasn’t just giving his personal take; he was citing straight from the city FAQs. And it’s quite ironic, isn’t it? You go on about valuing the freedom to express "opinions," yet just hours ago, Anna Kuhre claimed in another comment section on this website, that you shouted and intimidated her in a private conversation for doing just that—expressing her opinions. Doesn’t that seem hypocritical to you? What is your agenda here?
That 1956 Car is surely full of Gas.
That Tasso is surely full of escaping gas - and other pollutants. BTW, Tasso, to borrow from, well you, “What in the world were you thinking when writing this comment? I am not sure I follow the logic behind this train of thought. Can you rephrase or try again?” Thank you.
I'm tired of Taso's childish antics, which are about as sophisticated as the artificial f**t noises my preschool grandson makes when he's denied extra candy. It's clear Taso prefers to drown out serious policy discussions rather than engage in them constructively. Good riddance to that.
For the sake of completeness, and because I find the remark quite telling, here's what Anna Kuhre recently wrote about Taso and Michael Nash, the mayor's husband (here's her full comment): "Taso, you yelled at me over the phone just like Michael Nash, trying to bully and intimidate me for standing up for my rights. Go ahead, start your own district like you threatened, to try to intimidate me. I refuse to accept any false honor on my home. I've turned down honors in this city before because I won't be used to further someone else's agenda. The true issue here is fighting SB 9 and the covenants in the general plan. You're too filled with hate for me to want any association with you. We need to put an end to all this hatred in our city."
Another day, another batch of misinformation and fear tactics from Less Red Tape. Anyone who has done any traveling will know historic districts are sought after and valued. And even if you don’t travel, take a walk through Glazenwood in Hayward Park, where owners are proud of their historic designation and enjoy higher property values within the district vs the surrounding Hayward Park area (which is still very nice!) And remodels are frequent there, since San Mateo controls that. Let’s get past the noise and support the preservation of key historic resources in San Mateo.
From what I understand, a lot of potential buyers have shied away from Glazenwood because of the stringent restrictions they'd face. This isn't seen as a perk, but rather a drawback. Also, freezing a whole district in amber doesn't equate to "preserving key historic resources." Anyone interested can apply to be an individual contributor right now, without any meddling from the SMHA. And Connie, just because this is your preference doesn't make it the right course of action.
Gas Car - this is a great example of misinformation: a neighborhood won’t have higher values if buyers shy away. Have you talked to any Glazenwood residents? They love their neighborhood and haven’t felt any restrictions from the City.
Connie is back. I thought Taso took your place as head SMHA cheerleader. Anyway, I'm glad you've spoken to "all" Glazenwood residents to assure their comfort level with this restriction. However, you and SMHA are getting direct feedback from many, many Baywood residents who don't want it and you continue to push your agenda. So your comments here are disingenuous and not relative.
Connie - thanks for baiting Pretending Feedback to chime in. Made me laugh out loud. Too funny
Taso - Glad you missed me. I must have made quite an impression or gotten under your skin for you to mention me so much. I am flattered. However, I won't bother to engage with you any further since it's clear you hold no interest in seeking common ground, getting along, nor caring about people other than yourself and the SMHA crew. We have tried to point out that you and your folks are making many people quite stressed out and very unhappy. Yet, you and the SMHA "band of 6" like arguing and twisting the knife and I am not the least bit interested in that. Enjoy the Karma. Happy 4th!
You answered my question with your opening disclaimer of "From What I Understand". That made it easy. Thank you
Tasso, to paraphrase from you, is it possible you were not reading when you wrote this comment? GasCar1956 isn’t responding to you, and furthermore, I don’t see Connie Weiss asking any questions. You make me laugh out loud. Too funny! BTW, if you use quotation marks, you need to use exact verbiage and lettercase. There are a number of style guides that can help you. Perhaps you were too bent on trying to attack someone else but instead you make yourself look foolish. Thank you.
Hey Connie, Glazenwood is not Baywood. And how do you explain the homes outside Glazenwood which have higher property values? Actually, didn’t most homes in San Mateo increase in value? Without a historic designation? The horror! I guess a historic district doesn’t guarantee higher property values.
Meanwhile, let’s get past the noise and perhaps you can explain why the SMHA is so intent on trampling homeowner rights. When you last left me, you admitted the Heritage Alliance submitted an application that was rejected at the local level but you failed to answer natural follow-up questions…
Why did the Heritage Alliance decide to bypass the city response and submit the historic application package to the state? Was the Heritage Alliance unaware they would trample on homeowner property rights and then later, become aware, but chose to soldier forward, regardless of how Baywood homeowners feel?
Seems to me that the best course of action is 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? Why hurt/destroy the reputation of the Heritage Alliance, their members, and SMHA surrogates?
Terence, here’s a fun fact: Heritage Alliance approached the City to request they submit the application for historic designation. They declined, saying Heritage Alliance was free to do it if they desired. Heritage Alliance has worked closely and partnered with the City, and will continue to do so with the historic ordinance. Your buddies at Less Red Tape have been invited but can’t seem to get past their lies and dirty tricks to be civil. So here we are.
Submitting an application to the State Office of Historic Preservation or using the local process outlined in our Historic Preservation Ordinance would require the input and approval of City Council. Did the San Mateo Heritage Alliance ever request that City Council take either of these actions?
I recall that the SMHA FAQ used to say "Does the City know about his effort? Yes, we have met with the Community Development Department and they are supportive." implying that City staff supported SMHA's application to the CA OHP to have Baywood listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Apparently that wasn't true and the City asked them to change the language on their website, which now reads, "We have met with the Community Development Department and they are supportive of improving and strengthening historic preservation policies in the General Plan and Zoning Code."
Seema, you are either notably uninformed as a Planning Commission chair or intentionally misleading the public. In any event, it is clear you must recuse yourself on anything related to historic issues given your repeated statements against historic preservation efforts and misrepresentations made during General Plan steering committee meetings.
Hilariously Uninformed Yet Again.
Thanks for your response, Connie. So you’re admitting that the Heritage Alliance moved forward with the historic designation, knowing full well it would trample on homeowner rights? So here we are, with you and the Heritage Alliance getting what you’ve hoped for - divisiveness rather than unity. I hope it doesn’t, but I get the feeling this issue will end up with plenty of sullied SMHA reputations and credibility, if not ultimately in courts. And for what? Misplaced pride? In the spirit of Taso’s recent tactic, will the SMHA become known as the San Mateo Homeowner Attack group? BTW, speaking of Taso, you might want to have a talk with your buddy. His cheerleading is fine but his thin skin doesn’t translate into a good look for the SMHA. And how is Seema misleading the public? Her quote from the SMHA FAQ website is accurate. So who are the ones who can’t get past their lies and dirty tricks? Based on this LTE and comments, I think readers can figure it out.
Terence, No. You are simply parroting Less Red Tape’s fear tactics, lies, and misinformation. Not a good look for you. I wouldn’t worry about Taso…
Thank you, Connie Weiss, for returning to your usual tactic when at a loss - throwaway comments. Why aren’t I surprised you can’t justify San Mateo Homeowner Attack’s fear tactics, lies, and misinformation? As for Taso, he’s only hurting SMHA and thus far hasn’t posed a challenge. Although he’s adopted your tendency for throwaway comments. Maybe that’s an agenda item in SMHA meetings?
Thanks for your letter, Mr. Ryan. Apparently, the SMHA and their surrogates prefer division rather than unity. I encourage all our dear readers to set the record straight and continually call out the SMHA and their surrogates on their lies and misinformation. Everyone, not just Baywood homeowners, should know what dealing with the SMHA may entail.
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.