Editor,
This year, the city of San Mateo faces a projected $10 million budget deficit. When households spend more than they have, they begin examining every dollar and looking for ways to save. Residents should expect the same discipline from City Hall.
Instead, after approving roughly $400,000 for an update to the city’s historic preservation ordinances, a project that’s public demand appears limited, the City Council has now voted to create a permanent Historic Preservation Commission, without any detailed discussion of costs.
A separate commission would require administrative support, training and members with specialized expertise in areas such as architecture and archaeology.
Yet the city already operates a Planning Commission that costs $50,400 annually, according to the adopted 2025-26 budget. That commission includes members with relevant expertise and could likely handle the limited number of expected historic applications without creating additional bureaucracy and costs.
At a time when the city is confronting a major deficit, creating what appears to be a duplicative commission deserves closer scrutiny. Every new recurring expense reduces funds available for core services — from street repairs to youth and senior programs.
Without greater fiscal restraint by the city, San Mateans may soon face an unpleasant choice: cuts to city services or higher taxes. Residents should ask their councilmembers for stronger financial accountability until the budget situation is brought back into balance.
Andrew Ryan
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.
(5) comments
I admire your optimism, Mr. Ryan, but when has San Mateo shown or practiced meaningful fiscal restraint? Instead, the city will turn on the fear mongering propaganda machine, which media will happily amplify, and propose tax measures, over and over, until they pass. Until we, as voters, force fiscal restraint on the city or state, by voting NO on all tax measures, unions will happily walk down the primrose path, taking money from the wallets of voters to transfer them to union wallets.
Right you are.
Terence - Correct, indeed!. Very important for the CIty to understand.
This council is responding to public outcry in an attempt to keep city staff from exerting any additional authority over private property. The Planning Department already demonstrates tremendous authority over private property and citizens do not willingly surrender any personal authority to any commission or individual city employee to administer additional red tape on any home owner who is already overburdened with ordinances administered by our very effective planning department. Citizens reserve the right to be able to accommodate their family needs without any further interference from city hall. This whole historic issue threatens the individual rights of homeowners to meet family needs. That is why “Consent” is the centerpiece of this whole ordinance. There has been no stampede of historic applications. In fact there has only been one in the north central neighborhood. There is no need for a historic commission. Planning commission is where historic applications belong. But politics play a big role as to why council refuses to let the Planning Commission review historic applications. San Francisco has just folded their historic commission into their planning commission. With our current deficit, no money should be allocated for historic. Focus on public safety! We have safety issues all over town between the lagoon, traffic safety and bicycle safety. Focus on real issues.
Thank you Andrew! Finally a voice of sanity. Spending money on historic "feel good" issues when "realistic" street light fixes could prevent further pedestrian deaths is ludicrous. I wish you would run for City Council! I'd vote for you!
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.