Editor,
Councilmember Lisa Diaz Nash’s April 6 guest perspective addressing Horizon’s sobering station was an interesting yarn.
Editor,
Councilmember Lisa Diaz Nash’s April 6 guest perspective addressing Horizon’s sobering station was an interesting yarn.
In the first sentence, Nash states it’s her job to “ensure our residents have a say in all major policy decisions.” She explains that on March 16 she “issued a written call to the county stating in no uncertain terms that I would not be supporting the siting of the center at the proposed San Mateo location.”
During announcements at the end of the April 6 City Council meeting, Nash requested and received support from her fellow councilmembers to represent the council in opposition to the project at the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors meeting the following day. Residents were neither informed beforehand that the council would take a position on the Horizon project at this meeting, nor were they given the opportunity to provide public comment.
Furthermore, informing fellow councilmembers of her views (via a written letter to the county and a local newspaper article) prior to a public hearing is a potential violation of the Brown Act and ethically problematic.
Nash wraps up slamming Horizon and the county for not meeting “their commitment to transparency and community collaboration.” But before Nash lectures the county on transparency, she should practice it on her own dais. It is the height of hypocrisy to demand public engagement from others while secretly securing the council’s official opposition without giving the public a chance to speak.
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.
(2) comments
John Ebneter’s letter is a distraction from the real issue: the lack of transparency driven by Supervisor Noelia Corzo and Horizon in advancing their Detox project at 101 N. El Camino Real with up to 17,520 drop-offs near a pre-K/elementary school.
It’s also worth noting that Mr. Ebneter has publicly supported Corzo’s position on this project—where residents were kept in the dark while the County committed funding and Horizon moved forward without a full operational plan, clear safety protocols, or a transparent site-selection process.
Ebneter’s attempt to manufacture a Brown Act violation is baseless. Public officials are allowed—and expected—to state positions publicly. That’s not misconduct; that’s representation.
This raises a fair question: who is Mr. Ebneter really serving by trying to redirect attention away from Corzo’s failure to represent the very residents she sought votes from? Talk about hypocrisy—and ethically problematic.
What is truly “ethically problematic” is Corzo championing a $25 million, privately owned facility while dismissing community concerns and resisting alternatives that could deliver services faster and with accountability. Horizon, meanwhile, has failed to answer fundamental questions.
Nash did what residents have been demanding: she stood up and gave voice to a community that has been sidelined and ignored.
Calling that hypocrisy is not just wrong ---- it’s willful misdirection.
I support this response. Ms. Nash did do what the residents of this neighborhood wanted and it is rare for someone in that position to take such a clear stance in the face of the pushback she has and will receive. Thanks goes as well to Jackie Speier for her helping to stop a project which never should even have been proposed.
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.