Easy fixes to historic ordinance

May 16, 2026
May 16, 2026
5

Editor,

San Mateo’s new Historic Preservation Ordinance is a step forward.

(5) comments

anna kuhre May 16, 2026 5:54am

Rincon the consultant hired by the City to write the ordinance polled 29 others cities. Some are as high as 75%. You have submitted bad info in your LTE.

Terence Y May 16, 2026 8:33am

Thanks for your letter, Mr. D’Anna. A counterproposal – allow individual homeowners in any potentially affected neighborhood to opt out of a historic designation. Failing that, I’d say that in person, with proof of ID and affected home ownership, is the only accepted method of consent. And instead of being run-of-the-mill in threshold or as high as the 75% reported by anna kuhre, I’d say we shoot for the stars and require an 83% threshold. Two flaws, one or two easy fixes. Fair to homeowners and their rights.

Connie Weiss May 16, 2026 9:51am

Thank you, Doug, for calling out these flaws. Another important point is the 1989 survey - absolutely no one on that survey has been inconvenienced by having their homes included, but the opposition would have you believe that all kinds of onerous things will happen now that the survey is incorporated into the ordinance. The fear mongering and lies are revving up again. It’s time we put a stop to it now. I hope Council will finally stand up to this misinformation and do the right thing for San Mateo’s historic structures.

Terence Y May 18, 2026 8:36am

Ms. Weiss, I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. We are no longer in 1989 and things have changed in 35+ years. How many end of the world predictions were made that haven’t come true? Do a search for global warming conspiracy hero, Al Gore, to find out. In fact, isn’t Mr. Gore now predicting an ice age? Didn’t Ehrlich predict hundreds of millions would die in the 1970’s or 1980’s because population growth would outpace food supplies? The vast majority, as far as I know, haven’t resorted to cannibalism and I haven’t seen Soylent Green (as a food source) in markets. What happened in 1989 isn't relevant.

As for onerous, the biggest issues with historic designation are increased costs and more red tape. Seems to me that misinformation is coming from folks who say there won’t be more red tape when common sense (no survey needed) tells you there will be. And how about all the red tape, and wasted money, we’ve encountered in multiple years in developing an ordinance. How much money has been and will continue to be wasted because a minor subset of folks wants to take away homeowner rights? If one, or many, feel a home is historic then they can put in a winning offer to buy the home and do with it as they see fit. Easy peasy. Leave everyone else alone.

Connie Weiss May 18, 2026 10:04am

What has changed? The buildings listed in the 1989 survey are now even more historic, that’s what has changed. We need to protect our history to tell our story. Otherwise we erase everything and become soulless as a city.

Thank you for visiting the Daily Journal.

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!