Editor,
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors should have known that the implementation of its plan to purchase the La Quinta Hotel and convert it into housing for the homeless was in violation of state law.
Editor,
The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors should have known that the implementation of its plan to purchase the La Quinta Hotel and convert it into housing for the homeless was in violation of state law.
Instead of acknowledging that fact and apologizing for the oversight, Supervisor Warren Slocum vilified the mayor and councilmembers of Millbrae who called it out. The county tried to saddle Millbrae with a bad deal, leaving them on the hook for the cost of maintaining and running the project and losing the income that the hotel provides. The leadership of Millbrae has a duty to its residents to look out for their interests, including preserving their right to a democratic process that the law provides.
Supervisor Slocum was also disingenuous in his depiction of the facility being ideally situated, and the residents being seniors and families.
The county was elusive regarding the demographics of the residents and admitted that single men would likely be included. This caused understandable concern among the neighbors and businesses nearby. The hotel is also next to a liquor store and has easy access to BART which could be problematic considering the high rate of drug and alcohol use by people experiencing homelessness.Â
I appreciate the Daily Journal giving Mr. Slocum the opportunity to express his opinion. I think we are better off knowing how others feel, especially those we elect to represent us.
Tim Donnelly
Burlingame
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
Well written, Mr. Donnelly, highlighting Mr. Slocum’s blaming the victim tactic. Mr. Slocum recently tried the race card tactic so let’s see what new, if any, tactic Mr. Slocum will try next. If Mr. Slocum is such a big proponent, let’s have Mr. Slocum and others of like mind cover losses/damages/liability incurred to residents from folks passing through/residing at the hotel site. Along with housing a few of the homeless, of course.
Hello, Tim
I don’t know if the Supervisors or anyone else on the county’s staff was aware that Article 34 could affect the purchase of the La Quinta Inn. However, now that Millbrae has raised the issue, Supervisor Slocum’s op-ed response was IMO inappropriate. As you pointed out, the county has been somewhat elusive in the matter of the La Quinta Inn conversion.
When our governor ran for the mayorship of San Francisco in 2003, he promised to clean up the City’s homelessness problem in 10 years. That promise was made 20 years ago, and the City still has a huge homelessness problem. San Francisco deserves better… Californians deserve better… and the homeless definitively deserve better. Billions and billions of dollars spent, and the homeless problem… like taxes, gas prices, and crime… only keeps increasing.
Back to Millbrae… it looks like the folks in Millbrae have lost confidence in our Board of Supervisors. If so, is that loss of confidence justified?
The Project Homekey site in Redwood Shores has had some serious problems. I emailed Supervisor Slocum in late August, almost two weeks before the Board’s vote to approve the purchase of the La Quinta Inn. I inquired about the county’s oversight of the Redwood Shores Project Homekey site with respect to selection and training of Project Homekey staff, the creation and application of acceptable standards of conduct for assignment to housing at the site, and whether the promised community advisory committee tasked with evaluating the effectiveness of the program had been formed. No response. I emailed again after the Supervisors approved the La Quinta Inn purchase, and I got a response from a county staffer saying the county was going to hire an analyst and contract with a consultant to evaluate the project. It seems odd the county would wait three years after creating the Redwood Shores facility to start a review about the effectiveness of the project.
So, if the folks in Millbrae have lost confidence in the Board of Supervisors, is that loss justified?
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.