Editor,
Between 1922-25 the Glazenwood Tract became San Mateo’s first “restricted” real estate development: persons of certain races, national origins or religions were legally barred from living there. The second “restricted” development was the Baywood neighborhood starting in 1927.
Racial prejudice was prevalent during the 1920s and 1930s. A public membership drive for the Ku Klux Klan was launched in 1924, when the San Mateo Times carried a front-page headline: “Ku Klux Klan Seeks Members in San Mateo.”
Fast-forward 100 years and both these neighborhoods are seeking to be classified as historic districts. With this classification not only will the buildings be protected in perpetuity yet more importantly their symbol of wealth and exclusion will live on.
The current persecution of persons of certain race, national origin or religions mirrors the times of 100 years ago. In 1926, it may have seemed trivial to have segregated housing considering the rampage unleashed by the KKK. In 2026, it could seem a minor issue to designate areas of historical importance and think it’s of very little consequence compared to the national disgrace of public murders and colonial warfare. Do the larger crimes against humanity give cover to our insipient local prejudices?
Historical districting is yet another segregationist tool hiding behind the law. To break through the persistent segregation here in San Mateo County we need to quit rebranding our previous tools of segregation and promote desegregation in all our distinct neighborhoods. This is key to implementing moral public policy that improves all our lives.
John Ebneter
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.
(6) comments
John - perhaps you can give us some examples how this "segregation" is currently practiced? If you refer to red lining, for example, I believe that has been illegal for some time. I await your reply.
John, welcome to 2026! I don’t know the statistics in Glazenwood, but in Baywood, we have a wealth of residents today, almost a majority, that wouldn’t have been able to buy a home here in the early 1900’s, including me. Now we, as residents, enjoy the beauty this historic architecture provides, including higher property values, so come on back to 2026 as things are much better now.
Re KKK: I have read that the KKK burned a cross near Mercy High School but cant document beyond snippets. Took place in 1920s.
Today, Glazenwood is highly diverse, with a significant Asian (28.0%) and Hispanic (27.6%) population. This is integration, not segregation. If your goal is to bulldoze these 35 homes, build mass multifamliy rental properties and push out these minority residents for the sake of crushing a segregationist tool, then go for it.
John, this rhetoric is getting old and tiresome. The national YIMBY lobby and all its local sprouts shout the organization's dogma that all historic district designations are to be adamantly opposed. Seems like whenever a YIMBY acolyte wants to overcome facts and reasonable discourse, the YIMBY playbook "go to" attack is used to insinuate or state anyone opposed to their agenda is racist. Fun Fact: According to the latest official US Census, Baywood (one of your favorite targets) has over 50% non-white residents. Yes, the original developers of huge parts of California used disgusting covenants and restrictions. They also built housing on land that was essentially seized from the indigenous peoples of the the area. A lot of really bad things have occurred in US history. Fortunately for all of us, the restrictive covenants were made unlawful many years ago and most of us are aware of the past and endeavor to reject any surviving remnants of institutional discrimination. +
YIMBY politicians Lorraine, Lee, Fernandez were the ones that wanted to remove a bike lane in an "Equity Focus Area"
YIMBY politicians Gee, Hale, Masur, Sturken, Chu have managed to FIGHT bike lanes in "Equity Focus Areas" for over 10 years now.
YIMBY politicians Gee, Medina, Canepa have constantly sabotage our public transit agencies by promoting more car-centric development.
YIMBY-sponsored astroturfing groups like Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, Seamless Bay Area, or Samaritan House have constantly harmed our "marginalized" neighborhoods by only pretending to advocate for their benefit.
YIMBYs are certainly not the answer, they are just a big part of another problem.
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.