Editor,
When I read Alyse DeNapoli’s article about the county’s decision to decline weighing in on Baywood’s historic district application, I was startled at the suggestion that there might be a majority of Baywood homeowners who were opposed to this designation (“County declines involvement in historic district” in the Feb. 28 edition).
Did the San Mateo Heritage Alliance not begin by assessing neighborhood interest in this? If not, it would seem very presumptuous on their part to subject their neighbors to this, given that historic designation can entail significant financial and bureaucratic burdens. If they did not do such an assessment, I would submit that the proper way forward would be 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.
I am aware that applying for designation as an historic district does not require neighborhood support, but the fact that you can do something does not mean that you should do it.
Karyl Eldridge
Burlingame
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.
(25) comments
The efforts to designate the Baywood neighborhood as historic smacks of blatant elitism. Thank you for your letter.
Karyl, thanks very much for your letter and a solid recommendation of the proper way to move forward. And great last paragraph. I, and other folks who have asked, still can’t get answers, after multiple threads, as to why the Heritage Alliance did an end around to subjugate all Baywood homeowners to more red tape and that, as you say, can entail significant financial and bureaucratic burdens. I would think we all want more unity in a neighborhood than division.
Karyl, there is actually strong support for a historic designation in Baywood to preserve the beautiful historic architecture. At a very well attended meeting before the application was submitted, I first encountered one of the founders of what is now Less Red Tape. We talked at length about why I supported it and he was against it. His arguments didn’t make sense then and they don’t now. But they have teamed up with our disgraced former mayor and her toxic politics were front and center at the Board of Supervisors this past Tuesday. The rancor and misinformation has now reached a crescendo, and it’s tragic for our lovely neighborhood. Please look at the city and county websites for accurate information on historic districts along with the Heritage Alliance site: smheritage.org.
Connie - You ASSUME strong support because it's what YOU want. Karyl's letter is accurate that a majority of Baywood homeowners do NOT want this. Forcing this upon your neighbors is what is causing the rancor, not misinformation or toxic politics. You and the SMHA should do the right thing and withdraw this application.
Providing Feedback, I’m not sure who you are since you are hiding behind an alias, but I suspect you are closely aligned with the disgraced former mayor and Less Red Tape that has accused an entire neighborhood of being racist because of the respect and protection for historic architecture. You are in the minority, this is something I know for sure.
Connie - I hate to even waste the time replying, but if you are "so sure" that the majority of homeowners want the historic designation why won't you and SMHA allow a vote? Why a vote wasn't done in the first place shows at the very least that you don't care what your neighbors think and pushing this through without a consensus certainly suggests a self-serving agenda.
ConnieW, you reference the Heritage Alliance site and if anyone does, they’ll 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.
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. I’d recommend folks browse the lessredtape.com site, especially the FAQs section and homeowner stories section.
You say there’s strong support for a historic designation but do these supporters live in the neighborhood? It sounds like they don’t. Also, you talk about rancor and misinformation while at the same time describing the former mayor as “disgraced” and accusing her of toxic politics. To be honest, many would say the action of the Heritage Alliance to subjugate homeowners to a historic district they didn’t vote for and cannot opt out of is more disgraceful.
GasCar1956, Providing Feedback, HFAB, and Karyl Eldridge have brought up valid points. And yet through all of this, you, and previously, others with the Heritage Alliance, continue to avoid answering a few simple questions. 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 folks who do not live in the neighborhood feel the need to force affected homeowners into a historical district? What is the Heritage Alliance’s hidden motive? Why the obfuscation?
BTW, why the change in username? Providing Feedback could also say you are hiding behind an alias.
Terrence, you keep copying and pasting the same misinformation. Heritage Alliance is being truthful and transparent. It is looking at what the city has done with Downtown and Glazenwood and truly believes the same will be true of Baywood. I own a historic home in Baywood and I’m guessing you don’t live in Baywood at all, so are throwing shade when you have no skin in the game. My home is my biggest asset - why on earth would I risk it if I thought my property value would decrease or I would lose property rights? It’s ludicrous. Most Baywood residents know that too. And Connie is my name, and I doubt very much if Providing, GasCar, and HFAB are called that by their friends. Aliases allow people to be extra nasty, and it’s a shame.
ConnieW, let’s unpack your latest comment…
You accuse me of copying and pasting misinformation. Asking simple questions is not misinformation, only a desire to understand the truth and unearth hidden agendas. Feel free to prove I’m passing misinformation and I’ll refrain from doing so.
You say the Heritage Alliance is being transparent. Many have asked simple questions and we get the run around and more attempts to change the narrative. That’s definitely not being transparent. In your comment above, you again attempt to change the narrative with personal attacks and a baseless statement on folks using aliases and how you perceive their character.
You accuse me of throwing shade with no skin in the game yet you’re seemingly okay with non-Baywood residents (with no skin in the game) forcing a historic designation on folks that do have skin in the game. So you now agree with my comments regarding folks with no skin in the game not having a say? So you’re all for taking a vote, as Karyl Eldridge proposed in the LTE to see how Baywood homeowners feel?
If you own a historic home in Baywood it means you’ve already gone through the process and have been “certified.” Why saddle homeowners who don’t believe, nor are concerned, whether they have a historic home? Did a Baywood neighbor(s) become jealous and apply for historic designation, fail the “certification” process and now, by any means necessary, wants their historic designation at the cost of promoting division in the neighborhood rather than unity?
You ask why you would risk your home, and I quote, “My home is my biggest asset - why on earth would I risk it if I thought my property value would decrease or I would lose property rights?” This shows a concern only for YOUR “thoughts” on property values and rights, whether right or wrong. We have already concluded neighborhood historic designation affects property rights and so those not wanting the historic designation, because they were never asked, are losing property rights.
You evince outrage at folks using aliases who you say are being extra nasty and shameful. Are you saying this would change the way you respond to them? How do you know these aren’t their nicknames? I know folks nicknamed Big Joe and Little Joe and Big Dog and Little Dog. And how do we know you’re really Connie? Because you say so? This is another feeble attempt to change the narrative.
Why don’t we get back to the questions you, and the Heritage Alliance, won’t answer? Not answering questions only begets more questions. And soon, questions will beget their own answers in the form of “I heard this” and “I heard that” and rumors will become truth. And all because folks are unwilling to be transparent in answering simple questions.
Terrence, you ask questions that have been answered before. Here it is again, and I will copy and paste when you reject the answers and ask again:
1. Heritage Alliance sees nothing in the current city actions that would change how homes can be changed in Baywood under a historic district. The key thing would be to keep the facade, but ADU’s, additions, etc are fine. You keep saying they have “may” and “could” on the website and that is because residents may have to show up and speak up if the city changes direction.
2. See my response to GasCar1959 above. This is a state and federal process that will have a vote if Baywood is found eligible. Why waste people’s time otherwise?
3. It is not red tape to protect a neighborhood. It’s a big red bow as we are lucky to have these beautiful homes to enjoy and preserve.
4. The majority of residents in Baywood support the historic district. I know this from the many gatherings I’ve attended.
5. The disgraced former mayor threw upstanding people under the bus, including Nicole Fernandez who will beat her handily in November. And I’ll wager Cliff Robbins and the rest of his slate for SM Dem Committee will win handily too. And if you haven’t already, listen to the Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday on Agenda Item 9, this is an outrageous display of toxicity. Again, see above on the vote. Heritage Alliance is following the process.
6. My home is a contributor to the neighborhood. I do not have individual historic designation. The neighborhood is special because of the many preserved pre-war homes. The district is the historic resource and the process is easier for all homeowners as a district rather than individually.
7. I noted my own home and responded to Less Red Tape’s main talking points of “property rights” and “loss of property value”.
8. I respond as I do to a name or alias. But you know all too well the bad behavior that can transpire when who you are is not clear. There were three comments removed on another comment area because the person behind the alias made dangerous, personal attacks at me. I fight against toxicity by calling it out, Because we are better than this as a community.
ConnnieW, I see another attempt to change the narrative in answering questions I haven’t asked. Why did you not provide examples of what you claim are my misinformation? Why did the Heritage Alliance, instead of following a local process, do an end around and go to a CA Office to push for a historic district? 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 folks who do not live in the neighborhood feel the need to force affected homeowners into a historical district? Those are the questions not answered which I will ask until answers are provided.
Since you opened the door, let me address a few of your answers…
1. Heritage Alliance sees nothing that would change how homes can be changed. Well, except for the façade. But now that qualifies as something, not “nothing.”
2. Why waste people’s time in submitting an application to the state in the first place? Why not follow the local process?
3. Thanks for admitting there is red tape. Saying it’s a big red bow is only an opinion and doesn’t negate the red tape.
4. If the majority of residents in Baywood support the historic district, where’s the data? Asking a few folks with the same mindset does not make a majority. Why not do as Karyl Eldridge has suggested and allow Baywood homeowners to vote on it? Then we’ll have data instead of an opinion.
5. Speaking of toxicity, some would say your rants against the former mayor and your latest assumptions and personal attacks on folks using aliases would qualify. If Heritage Alliance were following the process, why did they do an end around the local process?
6. If your home is a contributor and is not historic, why subjugate everyone else to a historic designation? They may not feel the same.
7. We already know there is a loss of property rights and a loss (or gain) of property value can’t be established until a home is sold. However, to guarantee no losses, the Heritage Alliance can guarantee to make homeowner’s whole from any loss.
8. If you respond the same to a name or alias, why make an issue of it? Bad behavior transpires regardless of name or alias. As with dangerous personal attacks. We should fight against toxicity as a community. In that same vein, we should also fight to prevent folks, such as the Heritage Alliance, in subjugating others to a historic designation they do not want and cannot opt out of. Remember, we want to fight toxicity, not initiate or promote it.
The process chosen by the Heritage Alliance is not only undemocratic; it's also deeply un-American. We abandoned taxation without representation a long time ago - or so I thought. The instigators behind the application should be ashamed.
It's concerning to see the inaction and excessive involvement of local city politicians. Our voices will be heard in the next election.
GasCar1956, this is the process established by the state and federal government. Residents will vote if the state determines Baywood is eligible. It takes time, will happen May or later. Democracy is safe in Baywood.
Connie,
I must point out a significant omission in your recent commentary. You neglect to clarify that the so-called "vote" we're discussing here is not binding in any legal sense. There's a window of opportunity provided for homeowners to express their concerns or support to the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, let's not kid ourselves; the input gathered during this period does not obligate the commission to act in any particular way. This detail is crucial, especially considering that, save for one federal site, there hasn't been a single rejection of historic district applications in the past five years.
Ask yourself, does this truly reflect the democratic process we hold in high esteem? The answer is a resounding no. Matters that so profoundly affect a neighborhood and an individual's property rights should be decided through a meticulous process that garners genuine grassroots backing from those directly impacted.
In this case, the San Mateo Heritage Alliance has dropped the ball. The current attempts to educate property owners feel like nothing more than an afterthought—an olive branch, if you will. It seems clear to me, and to others paying attention, that the designation of Baywood as a historic district is a foregone conclusion. The Heritage Alliance is aware of this. They're merely biding their time, confident in the outcome, regardless of the community's input in the interim.
It's a shame, really, when the voices of the very people who have built their lives in these homes might as well be whispering into the wind.
GasCar1956, we will have to agree to disagree, I don’t see it the way you are portraying at all. You might do well to check city and state websites on historic resources, and maybe reach out to Chris Eckert, who is very knowledgeable about the Glazenwood historic district in San Mateo. The world hasn’t ended for them and it won’t for Baywood either.
Connie,
I appreciate your perspective and the suggestion to review the resources you've mentioned. However, there's a fundamental distinction between the local city ordinance that governs Glazenwood and the State and Federal listings that the Heritage Alliance is pursuing for Baywood—a distinction that seems to be glossed over in these discussions.
The experience in Glazenwood, while informative, isn't directly comparable to what's proposed for Baywood. In my conversations with Glazenwood homeowners, as well as others across San Mateo who reside in properties deemed historic, the narrative is consistent: they speak of the added expenses and substantial constraints they face. These aren't trivial concerns; they're significant and affect real people's lives and financial well-being.
The Heritage Alliance had the option to seek a historic designation through a local city ordinance—a path that would allow for evolution and adaptation over time. Instead, they've opted for what many of us see as a "nuclear" option, circumventing both local policymakers and homeowners by taking the state route. This decision is irreversible, not subject to local adjustment, and subjects every single homeowner to the stringent requirements of CEQA, effectively relinquishing local control.
We've spent decades ensuring that zoning laws and designations remain under local jurisdiction, with the understanding that those closest to the situation are often best equipped to manage it. Now, it seems a small group is willing to discard this principle, pushing their own agenda without a full appreciation of the long-term implications for our community.
In sum, it's not that we fear the "end of the world" for Baywood. Rather, it's a matter of preserving the right of homeowners to manage their properties without undue and inflexible constraints and maintaining the ability of local entities to govern these matters as they see fit.
GasCar, you are misinformed on several points. The historic district will not be listed if more than 50% of homeowners object. The State allowed the nomination package to be distributed (opponents and it's on the SM Heritge website) to allow more time for review. The normal time to respond is 60 days.
The State Office of Historic Preservation thoroughly reviews nominations and does not send incomplete or inadequate nominations to the Historical Resources Commission to review. If a nomination does not meet the objective criteria, it does not make it to the Commission and hence no rejections at the Commission level.
Profoundly effect? Show me the evidence. There may only be effects if demolition, substantial demolition, or incompatible design is proposed that is not consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards, which are similar to the City's design guidelines.
The Heritage Alliance began our community education and outreach in 2022, through many approaches, and the outreach will continue. The shame goes to the representatives who advocate for destroying single-family neighborhoods.
The author sounds just like Seema. So familiar.
Oh my gosh, it sounds exactly like Seema! Hopefully she sees this morning’s LTE on Code of Ethics!
Hey ConnieW and Laurie H. – instead of wasting time contemplating who GasCar1956 is, perhaps either/both of you could spend some time answering a few simple questions:
It's been a few rounds so why are you still afraid of answering a few simple questions?
Why did the Heritage Alliance, instead of following a local process, do an end around and go to a CA Office to push for a historic district?
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 folks who do not live in the neighborhood feel the need to force affected homeowners into a historical district?
Laurie,
It appears to me that anyone who doesn't fall in line with your perspective is swiftly labeled as "misinformed on the matter." I don't believe that characterizes my stance accurately. Rather than leaning solely on personal opinions, I place greater trust in the seasoned insights of our family's attorney. This individual brings nearly half a century of experience in CEQA and historic preservation to the table, which, to my mind, holds considerable weight and offers a depth of understanding that surpasses casual commentary.
UnAmerican and undemocratic? Heritage Alliance followed established state and federal regulations that include a vote by homeowners.
Laurie,
I was struck by a particular line in the letter, which I believe merits echoing: "I am aware that applying for designation as a historic district does not require neighborhood support, but the fact that you can do something does not mean that you should do it." This sentiment perfectly captures the crux of our current predicament.
You're quite aware, as are we all, that there isn't a true "vote" in this process. What exists instead is a non-binding window for objections which, in essence, amounts to little more than a chance for public commentary. It's a token gesture that lacks any real weight or influence over the outcome.
Moreover, the point that seems to be lost in the conversation is that regardless of whether a house is officially listed, the associated restrictions and the ensuing complications that come with these designations apply the same. It's a burdensome reality that homeowners must grapple with, one that imposes upon our liberties and decision-making regarding our own properties.
It's a troubling notion, the ease with which such significant decisions can be made without the solid backing of those most affected. We ought to proceed with caution and consideration, rather than take advantage of a process that lacks a democratic foundation.
Let’s be clear about this. There was only one way to give Baywood homeowners a say in whether the financial and bureaucratic burdens referenced in the letter would befall them, and that was to conduct a vote before the application was submitted. Any vote taken from this point on will have no real import.
Reading through the threads, I see no mention of a vote having been taken before the application for historic designation was submitted. That is what the letter writer was suggesting should rightfully be done. I am under the impression that being deemed eligible for designation still subjects homeowners to the financial and bureaucratic burdens mentioned, so taking a vote after a determination of eligibility is made is an empty gesture. To claim it keeps the democratic process intact simply is not true.
HFAB because it is not a part of the state and federal process being followed.
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.