Lamentably, the state of politics in San Mateo is inextricably split. If one wanted to break it down in a simple fashion, we have progressive liberals on one side and more moderate liberals and conservatives on the other. One side seeks much more housing to accommodate the influx of jobs, the other side says it wants “smart growth” and more preservation of the suburban nature of the city.
The progressive liberals tend to be younger and include more renters. They often include people who came to this area in the last 10 to 15 years for employment opportunities. The moderate liberals tend to be older, and can include more homeowners who have been here longer.
These are generalizations, of course, which means this is not the case for all, but it sets the stage for a certain amount of conflict. The city’s council and staff has been the rope in the tug of war between the sides and attempt to plot a course in the middle to meet the needs of all. It’s no small task.
The city has been known as having a council that disagrees without being disagreeable, but that doesn’t seem to apply as much, though the shadow of that sentiment remains. It is the fault of neither, or both. Sometimes the philosophical split can be too much, and it’s indicative of the growing pains a city such as San Mateo feels when change comes too fast, or not fast enough, depending on your perspective.
The City Council is going through a tremendous state of change as the city moves toward district elections. With one councilmember heading to the Assembly, and three heading to retirement because of districting or other issues, the current council makeup will be dramatically changed. Only one current councilmember will remain as the calendar turns to a new year. Three districts are up for election this November, and the newly elected members will be charged with naming a new councilmember, most likely from District 4, which doesn’t have an election until 2024.
So the need right now is simply for balance and moderation. Most regular folks are not on the extremes, and it is best to find the right balance to serve the needs of the majority of the city.
Lisa Diaz Nash is a natural fit to represent District 1, which includes the San Mateo Park, Baywood, Aragon and portions of Hayward Park neighborhoods. When she ran two years ago, she showed a tremendous grasp of the city’s issues and an urge to coalesce divergent points of view. That has only grown since. Rod Linhares is also a natural fit for District 5, which is primarily made up of the Beresford Hillsdale neighborhood. That neighborhood has long been concerned with the potential redevelopment of the Hillsdale Shopping Center and surrounding areas including the former Bay Meadows race track. Linhares is in touch with that concern and the other concerns of the majority of the neighborhoods and would represent the district well. Sarah Fields will also do a good job representing District 3, which includes the Central, Sunnybrae, 19th Avenue Park and Bay Meadows neighborhoods. She knows the issues and has expressed a certain amount of fiscal conservatism when it comes to the city’s budget. She also believes in a go-slow approach to other issues and believes in more outreach so there can be additional voices at the table. Many in the neighborhoods of District 3 have been concerned about growth and Fields may not seem like a direct representative for that perspective. But she is a moderate progressive and a young renter. This is a viewpoint that is very much needed on the City Council. That demographic deserves representation. She will also balance out the council, which is exceedingly important as the city goes through a stretch of potential growth and change.
The other candidates, including Robert Newsom and Sergio Zygmunt in District 3, Nick Atkeson in District 1, and especially Adam Loraine in District 5, are knowledgeable, level-headed and earnest. Yet San Mateo is in a transitional period that is best served with balance, and the three choices to achieve that balance at this point are Fields, Linhares and Nash.
Strange endorsement tone here. A lot of focus on being a "natural fit" and candidates who share "concerns of the majority of the neighborhoods" without trying to delineate what those issues are.
The SMDJ editorial board (is it a board? is it an ownership opinion?) seems to be feeling pretty "meh" about these candidates.
I would respectfully disagree with the Fields endorsement. There are a couple of members on Council and several on the various commissions that appear to be rooting against San Mateo on various issues facing the city. These representatives seem to prefer that the State hand us mandates versus listening to the residents and working with the State to best meet the needs of our community. Fields seems to fit this line of thinking.
In addition, Rob Newsom was asked by the residents to run, I am unclear on the reasoning for the other two district three candidates, besides their own desire to run in district three.
Regarding the selection of the fourth new Councilmember to replace Councilwoman Papan when she moves up to the State Assembly, it would appear there would be a 2-2 tie and Council Member Lee will be in a similar position Papan when Lee was appointed a couple years ago. Papan could have unilaterally chosen Maureen Freschet’s (supports Rob Newsom) replacement, but Diane showed restraint and made sure the entire Council voted on the appointment. I do not feel Lee can exercise similar restraint and will have no reservation in unilaterally making an appointment of her choosing.
Fields claims to be for the parks, but at the December 2021 meeting, indicated she would be open to a proximity-based approach over the current standard of 2 acres of park per 1,000 residents. We are roughly in compliance with the current standard, with 200+ acres of park space. This does how ever include the Golf Course and open space at Sugar Loaf. I would question whether these two spaces should be included in the calculation since a lot of the space is not useable. My gut tells me this proximity-based approach is the first step in converting the Golf Course into another use, something the residents have repeatedly been against.
An endorsement of Fields appears to be an endorsement of the status quo and an even further division of our city.
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.
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!
(2) comments
Strange endorsement tone here. A lot of focus on being a "natural fit" and candidates who share "concerns of the majority of the neighborhoods" without trying to delineate what those issues are.
The SMDJ editorial board (is it a board? is it an ownership opinion?) seems to be feeling pretty "meh" about these candidates.
I would respectfully disagree with the Fields endorsement. There are a couple of members on Council and several on the various commissions that appear to be rooting against San Mateo on various issues facing the city. These representatives seem to prefer that the State hand us mandates versus listening to the residents and working with the State to best meet the needs of our community. Fields seems to fit this line of thinking.
In addition, Rob Newsom was asked by the residents to run, I am unclear on the reasoning for the other two district three candidates, besides their own desire to run in district three.
Regarding the selection of the fourth new Councilmember to replace Councilwoman Papan when she moves up to the State Assembly, it would appear there would be a 2-2 tie and Council Member Lee will be in a similar position Papan when Lee was appointed a couple years ago. Papan could have unilaterally chosen Maureen Freschet’s (supports Rob Newsom) replacement, but Diane showed restraint and made sure the entire Council voted on the appointment. I do not feel Lee can exercise similar restraint and will have no reservation in unilaterally making an appointment of her choosing.
Fields claims to be for the parks, but at the December 2021 meeting, indicated she would be open to a proximity-based approach over the current standard of 2 acres of park per 1,000 residents. We are roughly in compliance with the current standard, with 200+ acres of park space. This does how ever include the Golf Course and open space at Sugar Loaf. I would question whether these two spaces should be included in the calculation since a lot of the space is not useable. My gut tells me this proximity-based approach is the first step in converting the Golf Course into another use, something the residents have repeatedly been against.
An endorsement of Fields appears to be an endorsement of the status quo and an even further division of our city.
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.