There has been more than a little huffing and puffing regarding the current election campaign between two candidates for San Mateo County sheriff prior to ballot-counting on June 7.
The incumbent, Carlos Bolanos, and his challenger (and who works under his direction), Christina Corpus, have spent the last several months arguing and debating their bona fides, with a particular emphasis on all manner of high-sounding “progressive” changes to the policies, protocol and practices of the office.
Much of the discussion, often contentious, has devolved into a focus on pressing societal matters and issues, many of them outside the normal purview of the sheriff and his deputies and staff.
As usual, there also has been a persistent emphasis on fundraising, the inevitable dollars-and-cents tally of the grubby business of soliciting cash from supporters.
As a result, the core mission of the Sheriff’s Office has been clouded and diminished. That’s unfortunate. The primary job of the sheriff seems clear-cut, no matter who’s running for the position.
Here’s a thought: Why not provide the taxpayers, voters and citizenry with a firm, unswerving pledge to enforce the law, something along these straight-forward and unambiguous lines:
“As the sheriff of San Mateo County, I promise that my office and sworn deputies and other employees will uphold and enforce all laws vigorously, fairly and expeditiously.
“We will properly and carefully investigate, and when appropriate, arrest and charge individuals suspected of criminal activity. We will do so professionally and transparently while respecting the rights of all involved — victims, suspects, witnesses, et al.
As a matter of course, we will fully cooperate with all legitimate requests for assistance from all federal, state and local enforcement agencies without exceptions.
“In all of this, our consistent aim is to keep the residents, visitors, businesses and institutions in San Mateo County safe and secure. That is my pledge.”
Isn’t that what we are all paying for in the first place?
IT’S A SAN BRUNO SACRILEGE: Let us pause for a moment and consider the heresy that is occurring in San Bruno.
It’s a quasi-imitation of Martin Luther’s landmark 16th century attack on aspects of Catholic Church doctrine and practices. It’s a modern-day declaration against the prevailing political dogma that single-family suburban homes are a mortal sin against the public good and should be damned to hellfire.
Shockingly, the North County town is well on its way to welcoming a new, mini-neighborhood in the western hills just north of San Bruno Avenue.
All of the 29 planned homes will be large, single-family dwellings, all of them starkly opposite the multiplex orthodoxy preached by state and local high priests of planning.
It would not be a surprise if we learn that our various authority figures espousing what amounts to an anti-suburban religion (state Sen. Scott Wiener and his devoted Democratic acolytes come to mind) are threatening excommunication for the San Bruno miscreants.
Here comes Torquemada and the Inquisition.
MEMPHIS OWNER IS A LOCAL GUY: Devoted followers of the Golden State Warriors have no special love for the NBA team’s current playoff foe, the Memphis Grizzlies.
The ongoing series has been marked by physical play, technical fouls, rampant whining and egregious behavior. It hasn’t been pretty. Injuries are piling up as another contest looms tonight.
Adding to the very public bad blood is the ironic fact that the Memphis controlling owner, Robert Pera, is a San Carlos native. He grew up in San Mateo County, attended Sacred Heart Prep in Atherton (yes, he played basketball there), became a high-tech entrepreneur and wound up with a reported $18 billion now at age 44.
He used some of his wealth to head a group that purchased the Grizzlies in 2012 for $377 million. He keeps a low profile. That’s probably a judicious move as these acrimonious playoffs proceed this week.
HANG ON TO YOUR BALLOT: You have probably received your official June 7 election ballot in the mail. If you haven’t, you will soon. There is a temptation to fill it out and pop it back in the mail ASAP. It would be wise not to. Why? Because a lot can happen between now and Election Day. So be patient. Wait a bit longer.
Email John Horgan at johnhorganmedia@gmail.com.
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.
(3) comments
The SFHs in question are on the west side of San Bruno, pretty far from the transit stations. Some have argued that we should at least be considering alternative layours like clustering structures back to back with each other such that you can hose down a lot of the roofs from a single spot, and collectively maintain brush-free spaces facing outwards. This is well-documented to be good for fire protection. There also was some conversation around maybe doing a _very slightly_ denser design specifically in order to preserve the playing fields.
But I think you kind of mis-apprehend what Wiener, and YIMBYs more generally, are after. The push at the broad scale is for a gentle, incremental increase in density, where homeowners are free to slightly intensify the use of their own land to meet the needs of their family, or create a modest amount of rental income. (Speaking personally, I'm in the process of working on an ADU for my aging parents.) The push for significantly greater density is centered on corridors like El Camino Real, and various cities' downtowns. If you look at the studies, you'll find that people moving into new apartments along El Camino _already_ own less than one car per bedroom. Folks are using carshare services when they need it, and other than that using their feet, bikes and e-bikes, and so on. If we're going to meet climate goals, we need to build enough units that the many thousands of people who _want_ that kind of lifestyle can afford the apartments and rowhouses that work for it. There will still surely be plenty of SFHs a little farther away from downtown, mixed in with some small-plexes.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2019/7/3/making-normal-neighborhoods-legal-again
Candidates should keep it unambiguous: What is “progressive” law enforcement? I think when my German shepherd Sadie and I, a Peninsula Humane Society Pet Therapy team were given the opportunity in June of 2017 to volunteer for Sheriff Bolanos’ initiated Pet therapy program at the Maple St and the Maguire Correctional Facilities qualifies as “progressive.” Sheriff Bolanos’ focus was “to ease the tension for some of its inmates with mental illness.” (Tails Wag and Moods Lighten; The Daily Journal, Monday, Oct. 16, 2017). Our visits were to the Behavioral Health Program where SM County mental health provides inmates with therapy to cope with their challenges and to CHOICES a program of rehabilitation and life skills based on the Delancey St. model. These programs qualify as "progressive" to me.
I'm supporting Chief Corpus because I want a Sheriff I can trust, and I like her commitment to transparency, integrity, and community engagement. I like that she wants to bring them into 21st century policing methods including how to respond to mental health calls, deputy training, improving the low morale (100 vacancies), and more. Glad she was endorsed by the Democratic Party and Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Sen Josh Becker, Assemblymember Kevin Mullin, and so many more progressives like me!
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.