And then there are those many many locals who have no place at all to call home. One should be so lucky to be sheltered in their material asset. Be grateful you have one, 10 or 100 properties.

And. Every time a SFHO cries about a decline in their property value, is really showing the true color of capitalism at its most base, greed.

The barbed fences grow ever higher and denser, deeper around the precious property owner.

Maybe there should be some sort of state or city tax break for those that have restrictions because of the historical status? Some sort of benefit for the home owner beyond "you own a piece of California's history"

This was an issue fifteen years ago with the City of Palo Alto defining a very liberal interpretation of what is historic and what is not. There was a robust push back by home owners and I thought those city workers focused on this were phased out or assigned to something useful.

It seems it is back.

Maybe there should be some refunds for taxpayers who've spent their time trying to figure out if we're on the list, the money wasted on consultants who can't figure out which houses are old because it would be too much trouble to consult the various property databases, the calls between friends with old houses celebrating that we're not on the laughably arbitrary list of who's historic and who's not and Ms French's office which will no evidently waste more of everyone's time making people "appeal" their arbitrary decisions.

The arrogance and waste of all this is truly absurd.

PS: Among those thankfully NOT the list are known people with houses built in 1898, 1923 and 1926.

I love the idea of preserving the historic qualities of homes -- especially Eichlers, which I believe are not being considered for this designation (?).

That said, this seems, once again, a very expensive pursuit (in terms of elected official and highly paid staff time) towards ambiguous, potentially counterproductive, ends.

As a commenter said above, our most pressing problem is lack of affordable housing. In my neighborhood (Old Palo Alto), lack of affordable housing is accompanied by a rapidly increasing number of ghost/empty homes. Although this evidence is merely anecdotal -- because the City refuses to keep track -- each year at Halloween, we neighbors are able to see clearly how many more homes are dark. By this I don't mean just homes that lack decorations, but I mean homes that have no lights on and no one home to offer candy. For point of reference, I live on Waverley, just south of California Ave, where the City traditionally blocks traffic for trick or treaters.

Perhaps Palo Alto City Council could spend less time preventing the renovation of old homes (making it much harder for families to occupy them, much less to convert them to duplexes, which is a very environmentally friendly way to add small amounts of increased density to aging neighborhoods), and more time ensuring that every home is being used for its zoned purpose -- residential.

As more and more cities enact and begin to enforce vacancy taxes and penalties, I can't help but wonder why Palo Alto continues to ignore this obvious low-hanging fruit. Enforcement against vacancy as a violation of zoning (or by a new law which almost certainly would be supported by voters) can add affordable housing to our neighborhoods without new construction and the disruption it can cause.

Why not ensure that every home in Palo Alto is being used for housing (rather than as a passive investment) before other efforts? Putting families in existing homes would be a nice way to restore neighborhood character and allow younger/lower income families to move here as used to be possible in the past. Contrary to some beliefs, that would be very helpful to our elementary schools, which are facing problems of declining enrollment. Everyone wins from vacancy ordinances, which is why so many other cities and towns are embracing them. Why not Palo Alto?

Chief Planning Official Amy French: "We don't suspect the council would designate a property to the inventory over the objections of the property owners," French said. What an embarrassing and meaningless statement. The only way to ensure the final word goes to the homeowner is to pass a law. Let's see who on City Council really represents residents.

It's human nature for property owners to be concerned about property values. With the extremely over-inflated values in the area, it is odd and greedy to be worried. Have an attitude of gratitude, Be thankful you have a roof over your head, whether you own or rent.

And we're also supposed to be grateful that the city is wasting our money hiring consultants and making us appeal arbitrary decisions?

Wait.

Anyone can nominate the homes of city leaders who support expanding historical preservation --for historical preservation?