The danger of treatment centers is not having them available when they are needed, rather than having them on the edge of a residential neighborhood near a downtown area.
Treatment centers are part of our social fabric, and having a sobering station attached to it makes sense since one in a nearby city is no longer operating. It is no longer operating because the nonprofit running it went out of business not because the need diminished.
Sobering stations are effective in that people who are arrested for DUI or public intoxication can sober up there rather than in a jail facility, which might not best suit their needs. In Burlingame, the facility was known as “First Chance” since it provided just that.
And there is a definitive need. The county has been without a sobering station since May and DUI bookings at the Maguire Correctional Facility more than doubled between then and September from the same time period a year before — from 258 to 580.
A new sobering station is being proposed for 101 N. El Camino Real in San Mateo, immediately north of downtown on a very busy road in a medical office building. It would have 16 sobering center beds, 17 detox beds and 36 beds for residential treatment services with medical support. The idea is that the center will allow for the initial detox, and then also have further services available if need be so people aren’t leaving without the help they need. A very small percentage of clients require police assistance after dropoff, but it is in a contained facility with support. The San Mateo police chief said having a sobering center is worth it, so clearly the facility is not a public safety concern.
While the Daily Journal wrote about this proposal back in December, others have caught wind of it more recently and we wrote about it again to reflect the concerns of those who believe another location is preferred.
We understand the concerns, especially if there is a lack of understanding about what the facility will do and how it will do it. Such facilities are needed in a community, that much is understood, but concerns have largely focused that this is not the right spot, with other concerns being a grab-bag of various frights conjured through the exercise of “what if” and “what about?” There are treatment facilities, halfway houses, group homes, doctor’s offices, medical facilities all over that handle patients with similar situations and needs. There are also day care centers, churches, residences, medical centers and schools all over as well. Finding a spot where all these services and facilities do not intersect is an impossibility. Besides, this need not be a concern. People fear the unknown, but this is not a dangerous facility. This is a public health facility that is needed in our community and it’s in a central location near downtown.
However, communication is key. While we did our part in writing about this in December, we also know that word sometimes doesn’t get around until later in the process. There are plans for another community meeting 6 p.m. Tuesday, March 24, at the downtown San Mateo Library. It will help if the meeting is well publicized so those with concerns can air them out and get answers to their questions. It will also be good if ample time is allowed for those questions as well as followups. Maybe officials should even consider a second meeting. Being open and available to answer questions will be key for officials who know this is the right thing to do, and to explain specifically why this location works.
Since lawfare is the new American way, I’d recommend folks against this project begin getting together with lawyer friends or lawyer friends of friends to map out a process to put up roadblocks if the powers-that-be approve the project. Is CEQA still a thing? Is a sobering station another case of San Mateo taking advantage of “free” taxpayer money? Similar to the installation of the Humboldt bike lanes? Do residents really have a choice or will this be another case of you’ll take it and you’ll like it, whether you want it or not? BTW, where are other sobering stations located in other cities? Near schools, day care centers, churches, etc.? And how “near”? And how about real data on “what are” in regards to the “what if” and “what about” for those stations?
Completely agree. For example, Horizon operates an East Bay Cherry Hill treatment center. This center is on the ground or a hospital complex. Being adjacent to a hospital is a much more appropriate location for the proposed facility.
The editor has clearly drunk the Kool-Aid that Horizon and San Mateo County has offered. This is a case of the State and County using taxpayer bond money to overpay to create a treatment center to replace a failed one that is not wanted by the residents. The editor has made several mischaracterizations. This high density residential/acute treatment center is replacing a very low density 8-5 doctor's office. This center will have just a few parking spaces to accommodate 69 beds plus 24 hour staff and emergency vehicles. This intersection is already one of the most dangerous in the county and cannot handle the amount of traffic this facility will generate. The 24 hour in/out as well as the noise and lighting the center will create will affect the quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood; this facility is literally adjacent to a single family home and will back up to several condominiums. The City of San Mateo requires extensive notification in the neighborhood for several blocks when an owner does any building/modification to their home. But Horizon only notified a few homes directly adjacent or across from the new facility. Despite the story coming out in the Journal, most of the neighbors within one block were only notified last week. The editor says that the site is "adjacent" to downtown. That is a key word. It is not downtown. It is stuck right inside of a nice neighborhood. Since this facility will have residential beds, the patients will be free to wander around, possibly endangering the seniors and children who frequent the area. The County and Horizon have not had any transparency about the process. They simply want to use the bond money before it is gone and want to shove this project through. There has been no explanation for what other sites were looked at, or why they have to build new vs. using the millions of square feet of vacant space currently available in the County. This probably has to do with if it's** not your money, why spend it wisely. This is taxpayer money and Horizon reportedly paid half a million over asking. The neighbors are not questioning the need for a treatment center, but will fight to the end to not have this large facility go in where currently planned.
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!
(3) comments
Since lawfare is the new American way, I’d recommend folks against this project begin getting together with lawyer friends or lawyer friends of friends to map out a process to put up roadblocks if the powers-that-be approve the project. Is CEQA still a thing? Is a sobering station another case of San Mateo taking advantage of “free” taxpayer money? Similar to the installation of the Humboldt bike lanes? Do residents really have a choice or will this be another case of you’ll take it and you’ll like it, whether you want it or not? BTW, where are other sobering stations located in other cities? Near schools, day care centers, churches, etc.? And how “near”? And how about real data on “what are” in regards to the “what if” and “what about” for those stations?
Completely agree. For example, Horizon operates an East Bay Cherry Hill treatment center. This center is on the ground or a hospital complex. Being adjacent to a hospital is a much more appropriate location for the proposed facility.
The editor has clearly drunk the Kool-Aid that Horizon and San Mateo County has offered. This is a case of the State and County using taxpayer bond money to overpay to create a treatment center to replace a failed one that is not wanted by the residents. The editor has made several mischaracterizations. This high density residential/acute treatment center is replacing a very low density 8-5 doctor's office. This center will have just a few parking spaces to accommodate 69 beds plus 24 hour staff and emergency vehicles. This intersection is already one of the most dangerous in the county and cannot handle the amount of traffic this facility will generate. The 24 hour in/out as well as the noise and lighting the center will create will affect the quiet enjoyment of the neighborhood; this facility is literally adjacent to a single family home and will back up to several condominiums. The City of San Mateo requires extensive notification in the neighborhood for several blocks when an owner does any building/modification to their home. But Horizon only notified a few homes directly adjacent or across from the new facility. Despite the story coming out in the Journal, most of the neighbors within one block were only notified last week. The editor says that the site is "adjacent" to downtown. That is a key word. It is not downtown. It is stuck right inside of a nice neighborhood. Since this facility will have residential beds, the patients will be free to wander around, possibly endangering the seniors and children who frequent the area. The County and Horizon have not had any transparency about the process. They simply want to use the bond money before it is gone and want to shove this project through. There has been no explanation for what other sites were looked at, or why they have to build new vs. using the millions of square feet of vacant space currently available in the County. This probably has to do with if it's** not your money, why spend it wisely. This is taxpayer money and Horizon reportedly paid half a million over asking. The neighbors are not questioning the need for a treatment center, but will fight to the end to not have this large facility go in where currently planned.
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.