Editor,
Sue Lempert’s unfounded and biased hit job on Supervisor Noelia Corzo was a very poor act of journalism. Her unsubstantiated claims that Supervisor Corzo is a bigoted liar, was lucky to win the election against a popular opponent, is against appropriate policing policies, and is a disruptive and uncooperative member of the Board of Supervisors are all hearsay and conjecture.
It is truly laughable that Sue Lempert suggested that the current mayor of San Mateo, Lisa Diaz Nash, as a possible replacement of Supervisor Corzo, suggesting that Ms. Nash can work together in a more collegial manner. How quickly we forget that then Councilmember Nash singlehandedly ignored 160 years of tradition and refused to allow then Councilmember Amourence Lee to become mayor as the City Charter demands. Mayor Nash routinely ignores city staff reports and surveys that conflict with her personal agenda. You don’t have to look any further than the issue of the Baywood Historic District debate to understand Mayor Nash has absolutely no interest in collegial discussion with her colleagues, taking input from the public or entertaining any meaningful engagement with the opposition on this extremely divisive issue that has torn her city apart.
Unfortunately, Sue Lempert’s column comes off merely as a paid endorsement piece by those who will do anything to stay in power. It is also a blueprint that is repeatedly used in bashing women of color who have the courage, intellect and determination to advocate for the changes we desperately need to make. Thank you, Supervisor Corzo, for your continued courage to advocate for equity and a better life for all of us here in San Mateo County as you are a true light for change and justice.
John Ebneter
San Mateo
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.
(13) comments
Thank you, Mr. Ebneter, for showing us how Lisa Diaz Nash is a flawed candidate. And Ms. Lempert for showing us how Noelia Corzo is a flawed candidate. Seems to me that we should vote in someone else, anyone else, besides these two.
Whoa, so much misinformation to unpack here. Noelia’s history of calling people racist when they disagree with her was well known before she ran for BoS. Unfortunately, word of this didn’t travel far enough in the district to prevent her from winning her seat. The resolution she presented, and you spoke in favor of, called out the entire neighborhood as racist and white, when in fact, Baywood has over one-third non-white homeowners, and those in favor of a historic district aren’t racist but do care about preserving our beautiful historic architecture. It was clear the balanced majority of the BoS saw through this terrible resolution and it went no where. You are rewriting history when you say then Councilmember Diaz Nash ignored the City Charter - you are very aware that our City Attorney said multiple times that Diaz Nash not violating the charter so there was no “demand” she was ignoring. As mayor, she has been a breath of fresh air in her dedication to San Mateo. You have your own history of attacking the people you took an oath to serve, so when you term out, I hope we don’t see you in any official capacity for San Mateo again.
Connie,
Considering your position as a board member of Ethics San Mateo, it would be prudent for you to disclose in this comment that you previously served as Lisa Diaz-Nash's campaign manager. (Source: https://www.youtube.com/live/aoWY9qspJCE?si=B8aevijgT8rveJMQ&t=1887) I must confess that I was unaware of this association until now. Going forward, I will approach your statements on city politics with a certain level of skepticism, as it seems that you hold a strong allegiance to Mayor Nash. Unfortunately, Mayor Nash's handling of the Baywood historic district issue has raised concerns and is reflecting poorly on her leadership.
GasCar, it is no secret at all that I worked on Mayor Diaz Nash’s campaign, both in 2020 and 2022, although I was a neighborhood organizer, not a campaign manager. The City Council has had no discussions on the Baywood Historic District, Mayor Diaz Nash’s leadership is far superior than her two predecessors.
Connie Weiss, since you have time, perhaps you could answer a few simple questions…
When you last left me, you admitted the Heritage Alliance submitted an application that was rejected at the local level but you failed to answer natural follow-up questions… When the city declined, shouldn’t that have been the end of it? Was there an explanation of why the city declined? This would be nice for background and context but ultimately it appears to have not made any difference to the Heritage Alliance.
Why did the Heritage Alliance decide to bypass the city response and submit the historic application package to the state? Was the Heritage Alliance unaware they would trample on homeowner property rights and then later, become aware, but chose to soldier forward, regardless of how Baywood homeowners feel?
Seems to me that the best course of action is to follow Karyl Eldridge’s proposal to withdraw the application and start again, educating Baywood homeowners on the pros and cons associated with historic designation and allowing them to vote on it. Why feed neighborhood division when there’s no need? Why potentially hurt/destroy the reputation of the Heritage Alliance and possibly their members?
Terence, Laurie Hietter, President of Heritage Alliance has offered to meet in person to address your questions. That is much more efficient than to address the factually incorrect information you are posting on your comments. You can connect via info@smheritage.org.
Connie, I thank you and Ms. Hietter on the offer to meet. I may act upon the offer in the future but for now, in the interest of transparency and because I’m not the only person invested in the issue, I’d prefer Ms. Hietter and yourself provide answers in documented responses for all interested folks to read. To start with, you or Ms. Hietter can begin answering the above questions. And Connie, other than saying I’m posting factually incorrect information, please highlight what is incorrect and provide corrections. Each LTE or comment can be up to 780 words (as far as I know) and one can make as many comments as one desires, so there’s no issue with limiting explanations. We look forward to reading your and Ms. Hietter's responses.
Terence, we are not going to address a long list of questions that intertwines considerable misinformation. This is where an in-person meeting is required. Please contact Laurie at info@smheritage.org if you truly want to get correct information.
Connie, if Ms. Hietter is willing to consent to the in-person meeting being taped and transcribed, then it may provide further incentive. Meanwhile, I’m perfectly happy with transparency via the DJ, as again, I’m not the only interested party with questions. As mentioned previously, there are no obstacles to providing lengthy responses and although you keep insisting there’s misinformation, you provide no details on this alleged misinformation. Without details, it sounds like you’re promoting misinformation about misinformation.
If it’s easier, perhaps Ms. Hietter can add a section in the Heritage Alliance site to answer questions, such as mine above, and those submitted by DJ contributors or other interested parties. I look forward to your and Ms. Hietter’s responses, whether in the DJ or in a smheritage.org section.
Terence, please reach out to Ms. Hietter at info@smheritage.org.
Connie, please stop with the runaround. We look forward to your and Ms. Hietter’s responses, whether in the DJ or in a smheritage.org section.
Terence, thank you for making it very clear that you have really no desire to understand this situation. When told how to get the facts, you reject it, continuously. You want to stir the pot of misinformation LRT pushes forward. It’s disappointing, to be sure, but at least it is now very clear. Thank you.
Another day, another case of the runarounds… Connie, thank you for making it clear that you have really no desire to explain the situation. When asked simple questions, you continuously refuse to answer even though you’re given ample opportunity to set the record straight. You continue to stir the pot in pushing misinformation about misinformation because again, you’ve been given ample opportunity highlight alleged misinformation, continuously failing to do so.
The continued runaround is more than disappointing. Perhaps you prefer folks arrive at their own conclusions? Based on your silence, should one conclude that after the Heritage Alliance was rejected at the local level, the Heritage Alliance decided they would go ahead and submit the application on a state level, knowing they would trample on individual homeowner rights? As long as a few, or just one, homeowner gets their way, what’s a little neighborhood division? Is this the reputation the Heritage Alliance desires? We look forward to your and Ms. Hietter’s responses, whether in the DJ or in a smheritage.org section, but if not, don’t worry, folks will arrive at conclusions. I’d have to say they’re not flattering for folks happy to impose potential restrictions, more red tape, and more costs on others. Until next time…
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.