Preserving history the right way

I must express my profound disappointment and growing concern over the direction the San Mateo Heritage Alliance (SMHA) is taking under the leadership of Mrs. Hietter, Mr. Weber, and Mr. Nash(?). Their recent communication attempts to deflect valid criticism but ends up demonstrating a disconnect with the community’s real needs and sentiments.

The push to preserve San Mateo’s history is noble, but not when it serves to divide and stifle our community. The insistence on progressing with the state application, despite considerable opposition from residents and local leaders, suggests a disregard for public consensus. The more I learn about these plans, the more they seem to transform our vibrant city into an unwelcoming historical diorama.

Mrs. Hietter suggests that new local ordinances will address the community’s concerns. However, she overlooks the fact that such measures will not alleviate the bureaucratic red tape, the inevitable cost increases, or the constraints imposed by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These regulations will persist and can (and likely will) be exploited to hinder anyone wishing to modify their property or undertake new building projects, thereby impacting our city's growth and residents’ rights.

Furthermore, the timing and manner of SMHA’s sudden emphasis on celebrating the diverse historical contributions of our Black, Hispanic, and Chinese communities appear reactionary. It seems like an attempt to counter recent accusations of racial bias within the organization. It has been noted that the SMHA has supported actions to try and block development projects by minority families in San Mateo, a fact that demands scrutiny and reflection.

What truly baffles me is what the SMHA is achieving beyond these controversies. If the goal is to cherish and preserve our city’s history, why not focus on documenting and sharing this rich history broadly? The lack of substantial educational content on the city's history on their platforms is a missed opportunity and seems lazy.

The SMHA should seriously reconsider its current approach. Moving to local ordinances while continuing with the state application does not bode well for us. Instead of imposing constraints that sour residents’ lives and livelihoods, why not work on initiatives that document, educate, and celebrate our shared history in ways that truly enhance community ties? This approach might not only mend fences but also restore some respect and credibility to the SMHA among San Mateo’s residents.

Thanks for your letter, Ms. Hietter, but you seem to have glossed over Mr. Mays’ recommendation, and previously, Karyl Eldridge’s proposal, for how to proceed. You state “…that when the ordinance is updated, many of the concerns debated throughout the community will be addressed and assuaged.” And if not, what then? You also say, “…we are confident that no resident will feel undue burden once the ordinance is updated.” And if not, what then? Other than to reputation, there are no consequences to wishful thinking.

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 “we are confident” more likely than not, increased costs. 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?