Support homeowner consent

Let me summarize my observations regarding the latest Letter to the Editor and community comments:

It appears there are concerning inconsistencies in the positions taken by the San Mateo Heritage Alliance regarding the historic district nomination process. While the Less Red Tape initiative has reportedly gathered objection signatures from over 50% of affected property owners—a clear majority—the SMHA contends these signatures were collected prematurely, despite the state agency's explicit authorization of the collection process.

This position becomes particularly questionable when considering that the SMHA has simultaneously collected support letters, including merely 11 certified homeowner statements (according to Anna Kuhre's comments) and, notably, one from our Mayor, who had previously stated she would recuse herself from this matter. Mr. Elliott's letter raises significant concerns about whether our Mayor supports a consent-driven preservation approach or has effectively recused herself from these processes. Given that she and her husband have declared their strong support for this initiative (as stated in a document signed under penalty of perjury), it is highly questionable whether the Mayor can impartially represent her entire constituency on matters of historical preservation, or if she is merely advocating for her personal interests and those of the SMHA.

With such minimal demonstrated support—approximately 2.5% of the neighborhood—it would be prudent for the SMHA to acknowledge the clear will of the community. Instead, they appear to be attempting to leverage the local ordinance development process (over which the Mayor obviously holds considerable influence) to implement historical districting throughout San Mateo without proper consent, and placing the financial burden on all taxpayers. Their duplicitous approach of using the pending State application as leverage seems particularly inappropriate given the evident lack of community support. This approach to civic governance is deeply troubling and warrants immediate reconsideration by all parties involved.

Frank, as you know, the long-established process for designating historic district is based in the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The process includes the State Historic Preservation Office carefully reviewing all nominations. If the nomination meets exacting standards for accuracy, compliance, and completeness, the nomination is sent to the property owners with the request for support or objection. If more than 51% object, the district will not be listed. The City would likely have the same consideration given to the property owners. At Anna Kuhre's demand, Mayor Diaz Nash agreed to not weigh in on the Baywood Historic District through the end of 2025. It is too bad you, Anna, and Andrew feel no obligation to follow the established process.

Thanks for your letter, Mr. Elliott, and the update. Perhaps it’s time to begin ousting Mayor Diaz Nash and others who won’t support your cause.

Frank, as a Baywood homeowner who knows neighbors are very much in favor of a historic district, my guess for Mayor Diaz Nash declining your request is because all Baywood homeowners will be able to voice their opinion once the state determines Baywood is eligible. So your tag line is a bit off as there will be consent. It’s the state and national process that has been successfully followed in neighborhoods throughout the country, including our very own Glazenwood in Hayward Park. A recent survey shows 94% of Glazenwood residents who responded feel historic designation is important or critical. And a majority haven’t felt constrained by the city in their significant remodeling projects. The full survey can be found at: smheritage.org.