San Mateo County Times Reporter Mike Rosenberg is struggling to understand an issue that has been simmering in Burlingame for nearly a decade. While he is to be commended for bringing the subject of historic properties to the forefront, his command of the facts leaves something to be desired. Here is the full text of his article with corrections:
BURLINGAME — Vice Mayor Cathy Baylock said she was forced to block the sale of her neighbor's home after discovering it may have historic value, a case that could interfere with the ability of thousands of Burlingame residents living in older houses to sell their homes.
Vice Mayor Baylock said nothing of the sort. She told the reporter she was instructed by the City Attorney, Gus Guinan, that she was required to disclose what she knew about the historic aspects of the property. The impact of that information on the sale or no sale of the property was never discussed.
The precedent-setting case that could prove devastating to the value of any Burlingame
home at least 50 years old began in late September. That's when Baylock said she dropped off an informational packet at City Hall detailing the history of the home across the street at 1540 Newlands Ave. and its surrounding area near downtown.
Actually, after reviewing the resale value of properties in a number of cities in California it is quite clear that having historic protection and a clear process for determining historic value has a POSITIVE effect on property values. Clearly, this is a junior reporter stretching beyond his bounds.
The home, owned by five-year residents Rawson and Sarah Groves Hobart, was set to close escrow quickly after the couple put the house on the market for $2.25 million. But Baylock, after learning about the pending sale, said she was legally required to disclose a 2004 historical report on the neighborhood to city officials.
City planners, after receiving the packet, contacted the prospective buyers to disclose that any construction on the home would be subject under state law to a historic resources evaluation, which determines whether a property has historic value. The report costs $1,000 to $5,000 and takes months to complete. If any historical value is found, construction could be denied.
This is factually incorrect and should be corrected by the Times. No city staff proactively contacted the prospective buyer. The prospective buyer was astute enough to contact the city and learned about the additional California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for tearing down the house on his own.
The potential buyer, who was planning to do work on the home, backed out of the purchase the day before it was set to be finalized. Now the couple cannot find a buyer within $100,000 of their last deal and has decided to fund the $3,000 report themselves. They will not be able to sell their home until at least December.
"Planning to do work on the house" is a factual inaccuracy. This is a double lot and it has been stated that the buyer was planning to tear down the house and build two houses on the two lots. According to regular e-mails sent out by another local realtor, the house has just now been listed on the MLS, so the idea that no buyer can be found is very premature. The house has only been "listed" for a couple of days. It is a shame the reporter has not verified his facts here.
What's more, Realtors have since begun disclosing the threat of a historic inventory to potential Burlingame home buyers, which could prove disastrous for both homeowners and their real estate agents, said Alisa Ruiz-Johnson, the Groves Hobart's listing agent at the Cashin Company.
If nothing else, the fact more local realtors are becoming aware of a requirement that has been well known in 15 of the 20 cities in San Mateo County is a postive development out of this affair.
The couple had been friends with Baylock, an eight-year councilwoman running for re-election in November, and had put her re-election campaign sign on their lawn.
The Hobarts are casual acquaintances of the Baylocks and did not have a Cathy Baylock lawn sign on their yard. This is a mistake.
"I was shocked, and I was hurt," said Rawson Groves Hobart, 48, an information technology consultant. "We're completely trapped. All we want to do is sell my house, and we can't sell our house with this threat over us. But here we are, and now a precedent has been set. Anybody, for any reason, can anonymously, with no effort, unravel any real estate deal in town."
The Hobarts have been informed several times that there is nothing keeping them from selling their house. Demolition is what triggers a CEQA review. They have received emails from the City Planning Director to this effect. Perhaps this is a misquote? In any case, any buyer who wants to simply live in the house as is could buy it tomorrow without any concerns.
Legally bound
Baylock said she has talked with the family and feels their pain, but maintains that she was legally bound to notify city officials that the home could be historically significant.
"I absolutely feel for the family, they're really nice people, and I'm doing everything I can to help them get the home history done quickly," she said. "I will do whatever I can do to help their family out. I had a legal duty to disclose what I knew."
Ruiz-Johnson had held fundraisers for Baylock and was helping with her re-election campaign — but not anymore.
"(It's) just blatant disregard for peoples' personal situation, the effects of what's going to happen to the neighborhood (and) property values," she said.
Ms. Ruiz-Johnson should have mentioned that she was given copies of the same documents that went to the City Attorney. There is no "blatant disregard for peoples' personal situation". There is definite respect for a law that has been in place since the 1970's. One would expect an experienced realtor to know this. This realtor has failed to return three calls and does not appear interested in learning what the legal requirements are for this property.
Baylock is treasurer of the Burlingame Historical Society has been a stern advocate for protecting the city's heritage. She said the city recently conducted a historic inventory of 500 downtown properties for $30,000, and should do the same for its older residential neighborhoods to avoid situations like the one the Groves Hobarts are now in.
She said more than half the homes in the city are older than 50 years, the minimum threshold needed to lobby for a historic resources report.
This quote is a prime example showing that the reporter does not understand the law as written 30 years ago. There is no "lobbying" involved. It is a plainly written requirement.
The documents Baylock dropped off at City Hall, obtain by the San Mateo County Times, show the three neighborhoods around the Groves Hobart home were sold to the city's namesake, Anson Burlingame, in 1866, and later to William Ralston of Belmont fame.
Records show the Groves Hobarts paid Baylock and the historical society $50 to conduct an informal historic report on the home in 2004, which Rawson said he asked for out of curiosity.
This is a clear mistake on the part of Mike Rosenberg. The Groves Hobarts never paid Cathy Baylock anything. They paid the standard fee to the Burlingame Historical Society for a standard house history. Fact checking is sorely missing here.
Nothing special
The findings indicated nothing special. The home was built in 1925 and was owned by a bank manager, then later a food broker. Newspapers had chronicled a controversy over whether the home's owner in the 1970s could remove a bunya-bunya tree.
Planning Commission Chairman Richard Terrones said he has asked Community Development Director Bill Meeker to investigate the various historic statutes in response to the concern and confusion raised over the Groves Hobart case.
I applaud Richard Terrones' insight into this issue. He clearly understands the real issue here. The Planning Commission has discussed the need for a historical properties list, but has been stymied by some City Council members' reluctance to address the issue.
"There are a lot of question marks that are raised in my mind," said Michael Brownrigg, another planning commissioner who has called for more details on the topic. He is also running for City Council.
As for the Hobarts, they have unpacked and are settling back in as they wait for the bureaucratic process to churn along. They said they still can't believe their neighbor of five years had managed to block their home sale.
"I just couldn't imagine somebody doing it," said Sarah Groves Hobart, a 48-year-old project manager at the NASA Ames Research Center. "She was still waving 'hi' on the street after."
Perhaps that is because Councilmember Baylock believes she has helped the owners avoid potentially costly legal battles after the close. The owners cannot be blamed for something they did not understand before the process started, but Mr. Groves Hobart has admitted he now understands the process and will comply with it. He has even said he agrees that an historic inventory needs to be completed.
Recent Comments