Editor:
If you believe in good government, if you believe in democracy, if you believe in the legislative process as the way for communities to address problems, you must vote no on Prop. K. What is the motivation for these five supervisors, Joel Engardio, Myrna Melgar, Dean Preston, Rafael Mandelman and Matt Dorsey, to bypass all discussion and community feedback? You have to wonder, what special interests are being served?
One of the biggest problems (and there are many) with Prop. K is the way it got on the ballot. Five supervisors put Prop. K on the ballot, unannounced and at the last minute, leaving no time for an opposing ballot measure to be submitted. If not technically unethical, it is a down and dirty way to do government. No community input, no questions answered, no concerns addressed, no residents included in writing the measure, no discussion by the supervisors. Just a yes or no vote to permanently close the Upper Great Highway (UGH).
Even the language of Prop. K is misleading: “The restrictions on private vehicles have enabled people of all ages and all walks of life to safely recreate by the coast next to Ocean Beach by using the Upper Great Highway as a promenade for walking, jogging, biking, scooting and rolling.” You don’t need any additional restrictions on private vehicles to accomplish this. The UGH is already closed to private vehicles from noon on Friday to 6 a.m. Monday and every holiday. The rest of the time there is Ocean Beach on one side and a broad promenade on the other side for people to engage in “walking, jogging, biking, scooting and rolling”.
As soon as we were made aware of Prop. K, we were also made aware of a well-funded, well-orchestrated advertising and promotional blitz proclaiming “Ocean Beach for Everyone.” Did the funders of these ads know about Prop. K beforehand? Doesn’t it make you wonder who is behind this and why they are spending so much effort and money? The ad campaign is deliberately deceptive and a prime example of misinformation. Ocean Beach is already open to everyone and always has been. This is a tactic Rec. and Park has used before in the case of the Beach Chalet Soccer Fields. The supporters of the Rec. and Park sponsored proposition in favor of artificial turf, flooded the City with posters showing a locked gate with the slogan, “Let the children play” when it was Rec. and Park who had put up the gate and locked it. Yes, Phil Ginsburg was general manager of Rec and Park then, as he is now.
What are the motives of the funders of the Yes on K ads? Is it purely a love of nature and open space? Or, could it be that someone sees an opportunity for high rise condos fronting onto Ocean Beach with no roadway in front? Supervisor Joel Engardio says, in his monthly column in the Sunset Beacon, that “we will not see a wall of towers and we will not turn the Outer Sunset into Miami Beach.” But that is exactly what we will see as State Senator Scott Wiener and Mayor London Breed are working overtime to exempt the Lower Great Highway from the Coastal Zone protections established by the California Coastal Commission and upzone that area. There must be hundreds of millions of dollars to be made from developing two miles of multi-story condos with a beach front location. Mark Buell, until recently president of the Rec. and Park Commission, has a long history as a real estate developer, but that may just be coincidence.
How clever to disguise this gentrification of the Sunset as an “Ocean Front Park.” Now, who wouldn’t want an oceanfront park? It should be an easy sell to the rest of San Francisco. Everyone loves a park. Prop. K will open the door to future development that will massively displace the local residents and destroy the community of the Outer Sunset. We are being sold a an ocean front park when, in fact, there are no funds or plans for a park.
David Romano
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
Excellent commentary David! Everything seems to be a YIMBY scam these days, and both Melgar and Engardio are avid YIMBYs. Preston must have been conned into supporting this.
The bike and scooter rentals and events and tacky ‘art’ are all coming. Mark Buell found that there is a lot of money to be made from our open spaces!
https://commonsprotector.medium.com/the-buells-the-elitists-who-destroy-democracy-in-san-francisco-e00bf051d899
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is absolutely spot on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Personally I don’t think there’s a big conspiracy here? It seems pretty straight-forward, actually: the Great Highway was open to people during the pandemic to allow San Franciscans more outside space during social distancing, a ton of people (myself very much included) loved it as a park, it was closed back into a road on weekdays, and now the supes/mayor are letting SF residents decide how they want this space to be used. Personally I hope everyone votes yes on K! It’s such a glorious place to be and the pilot to keep it open expires at the end of 2025. There is a path but it is not well maintained (more like “urban mountain biking”) and basically already at capacity even on foggy weekdays. It is not nearly enough space to support the 1000+ folks who show up when the whole space is open to people on weekends.
LikeLike
Katie, Your statement that the pathway is basically at capacity even on foggy days, is not true. I have never seen that pathway at full capacity. I walk or ride my bike there often. I’ve lived in the outer Sunset my entire life. That pathway has not been maintained. It hasn’t been repaved in 40+ years. When it was new it was great. Smooth surface, wider and maintained.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This simply isn’t the case. Great Highway has *two* existing pedestrian walkways that are quite empty on weekdays and can easily handle any existing pedestrian capacity.
If prop K fails GH remains a park on weekends, remember that. The compromise remains. If K passes then 20k cars *per weekday* will go onto local streets, putting schoolchildren at risk!
Please think of your neighbors in the Sunset and the huge contingent of AAPI folks commuting from Daly City and Peninsula on weekdays — who rely on the road yet get no say on this measure — and vote NO on K!
LikeLiked by 1 person
With 250 parks and playgrounds in SF and as stated in the SF Park and Rec website, there is a park or playground within a 10 minute walk of every residence in SF. How many of these have you been to? Can you even name 10 parks and playgrounds?? You have over 3 miles of beach to walk along. Are you afraid of sand? Do you prefer asphalt over sand? The great Highway moves between 17,000 averages 20,000 cars a day. These are not sightseers or out to play. They have jobs to get to, places to go, doctor appointments and support commerce. It connects the North Bay and the South Bay together. Without commerce the city will die as we are seeing downtown. Maybe you have no where to go, or have any friends or family north or south of the city but many of us do. Btw… I live along the great highway and there is nobody out there at noon right now on a Saturday! There is no thousands of people a day as you stated. The beach is also empty for those not afraid of sand. In fact there is more cars on the Lower Great Highway than there is people on the highway.
LikeLike
Is there any actual evidence that Prop K is developer-backed or that the GH is slated for development? This feels incredibly conspiratorial and speculative, not based on any actual evidence. I’m excited for a permanent park- Yes on K!
LikeLike
LikeLike
Thanks for responding. That does not answer my question since this effort is unrelated to prop K. Also this does not even indicate that the Rec & Park Land the GH is on is slated for development.
LikeLike
Why would there be a law proposed exempting an area from Coastal Zone development regulations and controls if there weren’t thoughts of developing it?
LikeLike
Ah yes, Ocean Beach Park is so popular because it is a promenade on the beach that it increases land value my making an amazing destination throughout the Sunset instead of an ugly BYPASS that 90% of the Sunset was designed not to use and avoids Sunset business and discourages use of the beach. Sunset schools are struggling and losing funding due to lack of families and this is just the kind of thing that families want. I fully expect a flood of interest as we have seen on the weekends alone.
LikeLike
You seem to be entirely misinformed. Sunset children do not want more traffic speeding through the residential neighborhood instead of safely bypassing it. The beach has always been a popular and safe destination for all residents.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ugly bypass? It’s the best, most scenic (and quickest) drive in the city!
What would be ugly, on the other hand? Taking the 20k cars per weekday that it carries and putting them on neighboring streets.
Great Highway has *two* excellent existing walking and biking paths on either side of it that easily handle existing weekday capacity.
As for schools, GH bypasses all of them. Putting its traffic on the local streets puts kids AT RISK. If keeping kids safe is a prime goal, as it must be, then keeping GH open on school days is a must.
NO ON K
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have searched high and low for a plan for the “park” that will be built on Upper Great Highway if “K” passes and the plan does not exist. I agree this is a scam to close UGH to cars, either because somebody sees the opportunity to develop it into condos and apartments buildings, or because the anti-car brigade simply wants to inconvenience drivers under the misguided belief that doing so will make them take public transit (hint: it will not). Further, if you have driven on 19th Avenue on the weekend when UGH is currently closed, it is a parking lot. Closing UGH permanently, 7 days a week, would be a disaster from a traffic perspective. No on K.
LikeLiked by 1 person