The Horizon Recovery Center can bring critical unmet healthcare to the county. The services will benefit thousands of local families by breaking the generational illnesses of substance and alcohol abuse, accompanied many times with underlying mental disorders. The magnitude of such import cannot be overstated.
I take umbrage in the fact that the San Mateo City Council encouraged the formation of a working group, made up of community members and Horizon representatives, and then did nothing to promote or form this group. In the absence of a city-directed process, an ad hoc working group was created by community member Taso Zografos.
Taso has been a vehement opponent of this project and has publicly called for its demise. In one of his many emails on the Horizon project he stated, “This issue will not be fully resolved until Corzo-Horizon formally abandon their plans for the proposed facility at 101 N. El Camino Real.”
This project deserves to be granted a much higher level of respect than afforded by the city’s laissez-faire attitude. The city leaders have requested a robust civic engagement, and they need to follow through in making that a reality.
The injustice is the county let a fully operational site at Mahler Road to close after an embezzlement case (by a county insider) with the previous provider. Mahler Road would be faster to reopen and the remaining 25 million should be used for other initiatives. Instead the neighbors are being demonized for speaking up.
No one disputes that substance use treatment services are important. The question is whether this particular project, at this particular location, represents the best, most transparent, and most cost-effective solution.
Residents have repeatedly asked for information regarding actual utilization of Horizon's existing facilities, documented unmet demand, alternative site evaluations, financial analyses, and comparisons with other available treatment locations, including county-owned facilities. Many of those questions still remain unanswered.
Mr. Ebneter states that the facility will benefit thousands of families. If so, where's the supporting data? That data should be made publicly available and should also be able to withstand independent review.
The community working group did not arise because residents opposed dialogue. It arose because residents wanted dialogue and meaningful engagement.
The central issue has never been whether treatment services should exist. The issue is whether taxpayers and residents have been provided sufficient information to determine whether this proposal is the right project, in the right location, at the right cost.
Good public policy is built on transparency, evidence, and accountability—not baseless assumptions.
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!
(2) comments
The injustice is the county let a fully operational site at Mahler Road to close after an embezzlement case (by a county insider) with the previous provider. Mahler Road would be faster to reopen and the remaining 25 million should be used for other initiatives. Instead the neighbors are being demonized for speaking up.
No one disputes that substance use treatment services are important. The question is whether this particular project, at this particular location, represents the best, most transparent, and most cost-effective solution.
Residents have repeatedly asked for information regarding actual utilization of Horizon's existing facilities, documented unmet demand, alternative site evaluations, financial analyses, and comparisons with other available treatment locations, including county-owned facilities. Many of those questions still remain unanswered.
Mr. Ebneter states that the facility will benefit thousands of families. If so, where's the supporting data? That data should be made publicly available and should also be able to withstand independent review.
The community working group did not arise because residents opposed dialogue. It arose because residents wanted dialogue and meaningful engagement.
The central issue has never been whether treatment services should exist. The issue is whether taxpayers and residents have been provided sufficient information to determine whether this proposal is the right project, in the right location, at the right cost.
Good public policy is built on transparency, evidence, and accountability—not baseless assumptions.
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.