Editor,
For 12 months, outside forces with no stake in our neighborhood mounted a very public effort to keep Glazenwood from getting back what was taken from us — our historic district status. They wrote letters to the city. They wrote letters to the editor.
Turns out, they picked a fight with the wrong neighborhood.
Eighty-three percent of Glazenwood homeowners signed their names to a petition. We wrote dozens of letters. We showed up at two City Council meetings. We hosted a community meeting with the mayor and our City Council representative. All to affirm what this neighborhood has always been: a recognized historic district documented by the city as far back as 1989.
What were they trying to take from us? One-hundred-year-old Spanish Colonial Revival homes with genuine architectural character, preserved for the generations that come next. In a city filling up with glass towers and soulless modern construction, Glazenwood stands as a living record of what San Mateo looked like at its founding.
The opponents had an agenda. The residents of Glazenwood had everything that mattered — the truth, the signatures and the spine to fight back and win.
On a rainy Monday night in April, Glazenwood residents filled the council chambers and spoke with one voice.
This Monday night, the San Mateo City Council voted 5-0 to reaffirm Glazenwood as a historic district.
Turns out, they picked a fight with the wrong neighborhood. And lost.
Doug D’Anna
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.
(4) comments
Enjoy your victory, Mr. D’Anna. We should take note that in this case, neighborhood homeowners were allowed to vote on the historic district designation. Unlike the Baywood neighborhood where historic designation was being foisted upon them, whether they like it or not.
Congratulations to Glazenwood for getting an 83% consensus. So in the staff report it says 37 homes are in the district. So 83% of 37 homes equals 31 homes. Some these homeowners purchased under the guise that they were buying in a historic district. City of San Mateo was wise to grandfather this district since there is implied liability due to the failure of processing the correct paperwork back in the 80's. The majority ruled, the error was corrected and everybody in Glazenwood is happy. But in Baywood, NONE of the homeowners ever assumed they were buying in a historic district. Changing status would require a majority of 60% consensus. Baywood homeowners stand firm that No Consent!...No Historic!
Congratulations again! Please make sure all the lucky recipients notify their insurance companies of their new historic status. It would be a shame if they would lose their coverage due to lack of filing proper disclosures. Be prepared for your rates to go up, if they will even cover you. Insurers are very picky these days. Many Baywood residents received that message loud and clear from their insurers.
I wasn't aware there was opposition to the Glazenwood historic district. Who is the "they" the author is referring to and what fight did they pick? I didn't see any public comments against historic designation, though there were two comments asking the city to confirm that at least 60% of the properties were in support.
My understanding is that a resident was doing research on the city's historic districts, discovered that Glazenwood was never officially designated, brought this to staff's attention, which led to staff bringing a resolution to City Council. Now the 30 (of 37) property owners who supported historic designation can rest assured that their homes are officially protected. Seems like a win-win to me.
(Note that Mr. Eckert's documents and the staff report stated there are 35 contributors and 2 non-contributors in the district, while the author submitted a petition that covered 30 of these properties, which is 81% support.)
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.