The late, great Congressmember Tom Lantos once commented that San Mateo County is a hotbed of civil rest. Similarly, many local politicos, elected officials and civic leaders have described the “San Mateo way” as to disagree without being disagreeable. I am saddened to have observed a breakdown of this over the beginning of December with our new City Council sworn in.
Members of our City Council have bucked tradition, chosen not to follow city guidelines, played fast and loose with the truth about what the city charter actually says, and made unsubstantiated accusations against a deeply respected member of this community. And where has it landed us? I will tell you: No one gets to claim the high ground after what we have seen over the last two weeks, no one “won,” but San Mateo definitely lost.
I want to acknowledge that I am proud of all of the San Mateans who felt the urge to weigh in on the process of selecting a mayor, deputy mayor and fifth member of the City Council. We are a community who speaks our minds and I am proud to be a San Matean, knowing that we engage when something of significance comes in front of our city.
Running for office means putting oneself out into the public square and, as a candidate in this recent election, I knew that when I chose to run. I ran a campaign I was proud of — focusing on my qualifications, education and experience, while celebrating where San Mateo is doing well and laying out plans for areas to improve. While I was short of the votes to win, I came close and stayed positive. My observations are, I admit, both personal and civic in nature.
Recommended for you
For those who wonder how we got into the new and hopefully now concluded, practice of dramatic, contentious late-night City Council meetings, I would point to the very recent campaign season. Social media as well as the opinion pages of this very paper featured accusations of malicious intent in moving to a district (directed at Adam Loraine), attacked candidates for their former and current employers (directed at myself and Rod Linhares), criticized candidates for raising campaign funds from “outside San Mateo” (myself and Lisa Diaz Nash), mischaracterized policies and why a candidate supported or opposed them (all candidates, or at least the majority), and others beyond mention. Those who decided to engage in the bare-knuckles brawling school of politics should not be surprised to see that it continued onto the dais.
We all expect and deserve better than what we have seen. I am relieved that we now have a complete City Council along with a mayor and deputy mayor. I want to thank my former opponent and now my representative on the City Council, Rob Newsom, for making the motion to appoint Rich Hedges to the council. This showed true leadership and embodied the spirit of moving forward. While I supported another candidate for the appointment, I firmly believe Councilmember Hedges will work hard for all San Mateans. Particularly with an eye toward fairness for our workers and that is an important voice that was missing from the new council prior to his appointment.
I invite the readers here to stay engaged with the City Council and please not be discouraged by this, at best, rocky start. This council will need to lead us forward on our general plan update, the state-mandated housing element, along with a variety of local and regional challenges. It is important that the chorus of voices at City Hall represent us all. So, let us look to 2023 and future years to come with open minds and hearts. It is my sincere hope that we can reclaim the San Mateo way and build a better future for each one of us.
Sarah Fields is the director of Community Engagement and Public Affairs for LifeMoves. She previously ran for the District 3 City Council seat in the city of San Mateo and serves as a Parks and Recreation commissioner. The views expressed here are her own.
This is weak tea! Why do a both-sides piece when one side has the right vision for the future, that side was in the right on this particular issue, and public opinion overwhelmingly supported that side?
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
This is weak tea! Why do a both-sides piece when one side has the right vision for the future, that side was in the right on this particular issue, and public opinion overwhelmingly supported that side?
And which "side" would that be?
Now do Millbrae.
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.