Times Gets the Story Half Right..and Half Really Wrong

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.

Comments

[Sam]

Burlingame was abuzz with rumors about the "anonymous" resident/councilmember and we are thankful that the newspaper has now confirmed those rumors.

We should count on honesty and integrity at the very least when we think we are "doing the right thing" - especially when it comes to other people's homes and lives.

[fred]

Editors, you should really open this site back up so others can post their diatribes on city affairs. An open format is much better for the community as a whole. This site lost something special when you limited postings to the three editors exclusively. Is this really about giving Burlingame a voice or a certain group a voice?

The home page deatiling top posts for the week, month etc. was a nice feature as well.

[Gloria Stteinnemm]

Hey Joe, why doesn't councilwoman Baylock answer these issues on the Voice herself instead of you?

[burlingame resident]

Why is Joe harassing the Times reporter? I will never vote for Cathy Baylock now. She is ruining the value of burlingame homes. I was at the first open house of this property and Cathy was there handing out stuff for her campaign and chatting it up with everyone. She is a two faced! I feel very sorry for these homeowners, I hope the residents of Burlingame read the article in the Times and decide not to vote for Cathy.

[Loves Real Estate]

It's a pity that the house was only open one day. I saw it on-line and drove by the next weekend to go through it. However, by that time it was already "taken off the market." One wonders why the couple and their real estate agent spent all the money to stage the home, if they knew that they were going to sell it to a developer who planned to demolish the home and subdivide the property.

The home (at least from the on-line photos) looked like it was in great condition and was reasonably priced, especially give the fact that it has a second home available for rental income in back. If it has historic value that would have been a plus for me.

This is the kind of beautiful gracious old home that makes Burlingame unique and more valuable to most people. I think these folks are shooting themselves in the foot on this one.

[meatloaf]

seriously, Cathy B...I will not vote for you. And Joe....placing blame on the reporter as a detractor???? Desparate.

[proveitordontsayit.]

This has nothing to do with Baylock. It's state law people. Ask the city attorney.

[Mr. Slate]

Is there anything about this house that would cause it to be preserved under any statute? Can any disgruntled neighbor force a CEQUA review by alleging historical significance? Nice tool to shut down or at least delay any project you disagree with. Wow this is scary!!!

[Clifford]

Shame on the homeowners for trying to blame Baylock for their bad luck...Developers know if they plan to demolish a building of this age that they have to go through historic review.... Sounds to me like this was an excuse to either get out of the deal or get a better price...We never heard stories like this when the real estate market was on fire.

[proveitordontsayit.]

As I understand it, any building over 50 years old that is going to be demolished is subject to CEQA review. No one needs to approach city hall and tell them. The city will initiate the process on their own. It's a state law, not a city rule. I believe that this is what would have happened anyway in the Newlands case. It has happened several times before in Burlingame.

[disgustedvoter]

Seriously? Joe, if this is the representation of the stance that you and Cathy are taking, it really disgusts me. She just lost my vote.

Come on. Is a little empathy too difficult to even feign? Cathy knew there was nothing historical about the property. If you all don't want people to demolish and build different structures, that's another story. But to play it from a historical angle is laughable and transparent.

Ii think you're missing the main point of the article- that this red tape is ridiculous. The city has come up with regulations that cost home owners thousands of dollars and quite a bit of time- for what?

As for the council's reluctance to do a historical survey of the area: I'm sure there are much more pressing matters in the city. There are streets that are too narrow to accommodate the amount of parking and traffic they see. There are sidewalks that are years behind in repair. Police and fire budgets are slashed and there's a pay raise freeze on city employees that was necessary to save an entire fire station. I don't think anybody feels that it's really a good time to pay for a widespread historical analysis.

People read this blog to hear about things happening around Burlingame, not to hear you backstabbing anybody that dare question the actions of Cathy. I hope it gets back to normal soon and we don't have to see more of this kind of post.

[Not An Ostrich]

Dear Disgusted Voter,

I frequently have been a disgusted voter as well. But on this issue I beg to differ. Baylock is the only council person who has show real leadership on this issue. She has consistently urged the city to adopt a historic inventory. Such inventories provide clarity to buyers and sellers of property and remove the possibilities of ugly last minute surprises.

Contrary to your assertion, these inventories are generally not that expensive. They also don't need to be done overnight. Heck, some communities have taken over a 100 years before they get around to doing one (ha ha -- that's a joke!). Fifteen of 20 cities in San Mateo County have inventories, including our older sister, San Mateo. Certainly if they were so awful, we would have heard about it, right?

Far from creating bureaucratic red tape, these inventories actually expedite the sale, remodeling and demolition of properties, because they make it crystal clear what is and isn't "historic." Moreover, folks who do own properties deemed "historic" can take advantage of tax breaks. I have heard so many blatant falsehoods being thrown around -- that if you have a "historic" property your property, that you can't destroy it. None of this is true -- and those people who repeat these lies should be taken to task.

We are one of the very few older cities that does not have an inventory because the majority of our city council, for whatever reason, either refuses to be educated on what the law is, or would prefer to stick their head in the sand, thinking that there is political safety underground. I applaud Baylock for her leadership in addressing the issues, despite a lot of fear-mongering and ignorance.

[Not An Ostrich]

Sorry -- I accidently deleted a couple lines above. The blatant lies about historic properties are that if you have one you can never change a light bulb, that you can never remodel, that you can never add on, that you can never destroy it. All of these statements are big fat lies and usually made by fear-mongerers who do not take the time to become informed. If your house is deemed "historic" it is generally deemed more valuable and you may be eligible for huge tax breaks.

[proveitordontsayit.]

Please read a post from this morning with a statement form William Meeker, city of burlingame Communitty Development Director. It is, albeit, a long explanation of this issue, but it makes clear that this IS NOT a Burlingame ordinance but rather a state law that every city abides by.

Cathy Baylock was simply making sure the law was being followed. She was protecting the cities liability, the homeowner's liability and the real estate agents liability. Is there something wrong with following the law?

[fred]

So we now have avatars (welcome to the 21st century) and somethree or anyone can copy them. Every other site I've been to I could get a unique avatar but here I get to share with 'burlingame resident'. Nice attempt editors, but my open house days are long gone.

[Ding Dong]

Cathy Baylock got involved in this issue. She should keep her nose out and let others 'follow the law.

an unsubstantiated inflammatory accusation was made in this comment and has been deleted.

[editors]

This discussion has been exhausted