Facts, not fear: Public decisions require civility

County staff were present to provide factual information at a recent informational session at the Event Center regarding the proposed behavioral health treatment center, supported in part by the state through Proposition 1. Unfortunately, the meeting was disrupted by a group opposing the location, which prevented many of us from fully hearing the presentations at each station and understanding the project.

What was lost in that disruption was not just decorum, but information. People were there to understand what services the center would provide, how it would operate, how state funding would be used and why location matters for treatment access. When that process is overwhelmed by noise, the public is left with less understanding, not more.

We have seen this breakdown before at San Mateo City Council meetings, where individuals have entered the chambers shouting. At the recent informational session, individuals brought in a portable microphone on their own and spoke over others, disrupting the exchange of information. Children and teenagers were present, watching how we conduct ourselves.

Emotional outbursts are not new, but how we respond to them matters. The ability to regulate our own behavior is something we must model, especially in public settings. The division we see locally reflects broader patterns across our state and nation, where discourse is increasingly shaped by volume rather than substance.

Civility is essential at this time. The information surrounding the proposed treatment center is equally important, as it involves public funds approved by California voters for mental health and treatment services. When discussions are disrupted, the community loses the opportunity to understand how those funds are being applied and why timing and location matter. California’s behavioral health funding framework is intended to expand treatment in ways that improve access and accountability. That is why location and community integration matter, and why the public should hear the facts before reaching conclusions. The state’s process for allocating these resources is not always visible, and important context is lost without clear, uninterrupted dialogue.

Some were not interested in hearing those facts, instead focused on conclusions they already reached. Public decision-making cannot be driven by impulse or demands for immediate satisfaction. When the good of the entire community is at stake, cooler heads must prevail. The county cannot do business by yielding to the loudest voices or the strongest attempts to impose personal will. It must proceed through facts, discipline and reasoned judgment.

No one has mentioned that the Women’s Recovery Association’s treatment residence has been located in San Mateo’s Glazenwood area, in District 1, since 1970. More than 20 years as the Neighborhood Watch District 1 board member, I received no complaints from the community. I also received no complaints while Project 90 was a block away in the Hayward Park neighborhood. Both were near Central Park and across from Saint Matthew’s School.

That history matters. It shows that treatment services in San Mateo are not a new experiment and not something inherently incompatible with established neighborhoods. The local record deserves more attention than fear-based assumptions or speculation about what might happen.

Most people have not done the research on why the county is trying to follow the requirements set by the state of California to use these funds for a treatment center. In San Mateo County, an integrated behavioral health center could help relieve emergency rooms and hospitals already strained by people who need stabilization, treatment or short-term support rather than a hospital bed. It could also provide an alternative setting for individuals who are intoxicated and need to sober up safely. A DUI, while serious, does not automatically mean someone is an alcoholic. Neither does a neighbor, family member, colleague or anyone seeking treatment fit the stereotype of someone engaged in crime or sexual assault. That is precisely why facts, not fear, must guide public discussion.

Public decisions are strongest when they are informed by evidence and shaped through respectful dialogue. Civility is not weakness, and careful listening, clear facts and thoughtful public engagement are essential to sound decision-making. Communities make better decisions when people can hear the facts, weigh competing concerns, and respond with discipline rather than reaction.

In San Mateo County, we must be able to trust each other and listen so that we can make informed decisions.  To do that we must protect not only the right to speak, but the conditions for civil, informed decision-making.

Suzanne Flecker, Ph.D., is a former Neighborhood Watch board member for San Mateo’s District 1.