Editor:
When I first heard about the proposal to close the Upper Great Highway permanently to cars, I wasn’t quite sure how I felt about it. I was born in the Richmond, and am now raising two young kids in the Sunset. I was all-in for the JFK Promenade, but at first, the Upper Great Highway felt different. The current compromise – a park on weekends, open to cars on weekdays – didn’t seem so terrible to me.
But then I learned that if Prop. K doesn’t pass, the pilot program that allowed it to be a park on the weekends will expire, meaning it would go back to just being a road. That made me realize the stakes, because losing the Great Highway Park would be a massive loss for the community.
Car-free spaces in the city, including the Upper Great Highway, have made me feel so much more connected to the place that I live. I have come to really value the feeling of ease and presence I get in the spaces where I’m able to let go of the traffic vigilance I carry with me everywhere else, and just be with the people around me. I run into neighbors, my kids find playmates and I see strangers smiling at each other as everyone just enjoys the vibes.
Raising kids in San Francisco, it can sometimes feel like everyone is out to get you. I’m constantly worried about one of my boys getting hit by a car, or whether our elementary school will close. My parents in Marin keep telling me to just leave already, and sometimes I’m tempted.
But when we passed Prop. J to create the JFK Promenade, I realized that occasionally, things get dramatically better overnight. At the time, I joked that I’d leave the city if Prop. J failed, but instead we got a glorious 1.5-mile stretch of park where I can take my boys with no particular agenda, my 6 year old speeding ahead on his bike, my 3 year old getting an impromptu piano lesson from a pair of septuagenarians … this is street life in the best possible way.
Now we have the opportunity to do something similar along our beautiful coast, and I want to do everything I can to make sure we don’t pass it up.
Lindsay Meisel
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
I believe your basic assumption is incorrect. After the pilot expires in 2025 it was suppose to be reassessed and then the BOS, SF Park and Rec, etc would decide what to do – presumably after another series of studies (of which I am somewhat suspicious given the current inflation of attendance of the weekend closure). Here is an analysis of the misleading data produced by a paid consultant to SFMTA/Park and Rec https://loub.substack.com/p/mta-tumlins-great-highway-stats-appear?r=pltu7&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true. Problems with data quoted by pro-closure people are: Initial data about use was from a count from ONE weekend thus an insufficient sample size. A subsequent count was announced publicly enabling activists to inflate the numbers because they knew the date of a count. The methodology counts back and forth trip across a counter as two people, not one. And whenever it’s stated that on weekends the use is 4,000 individuals use the Great Highway, they fail to say that 14,000-20,000 vehicles use that same Great Highway when it’s open.
It would not revert immediately into a road again. That’s one of the reasons why opposition to K is so strong – premature closure of the road permanently instead of letting the previous compromise (the current situation) continue into 2025 at which time the BOS and the residents could continue to negotiate and come up with an acceptable compromise instead of this current all or nothing Prop K which was sprung on us at the last possible filing deadline although preparation for it was clearly going to for months before hand given the funding and endorsements that were lined up and appeared nearly immediately after the filing. Promises to solve the diverted traffic problems (which are significant) are just that – promises. Why not close the GH AFTER those mitigation efforts have been completed and been shown to be successful?
LikeLike
What about all the pollution we all have to breathe because of the added exhaust?
How about the tacky “art”, the plastic banners, the commercialization?
Just because one is a privileged soccer mom does not give one the right to trample on working people who are forced to commute by car!
LikeLike
<Gasp!> Harry, how could you fight and force the closure of a Burger King in your neighborhood?! Your effort only tramples the rights of working people who were forced to eat the only affordable foods available to them.
Your classist arguments ring utterly hollow.
LikeLike
In your letter you stated that, “…the pilot program that allowed it to be a park on the weekends will expire, meaning it would go back to just being a road.” This not exactly true. It’s a matter or “would” vs “could”. It does not automatically go back to being a road. It could go back to being a road, but only after the matter goes before the Board of Supervisors who will look at all the data that is now being collected and take public comment as to the best use of the highway. I think, as do many others, that the Supervisors will allow the compromise (roadway during the week, park on weekends) to continue. This has been working for most of us, and the Supervisors are likely to determine that this is ultimately the best for everyone. I hope you will reconsider your vote, and allow for the completion of the pilot program. That way, we can reach a solution that is fair and equitable for all.
LikeLike
I love this so much! Thank you for sharing! I also have two little kids in the Sunset (and family who would be very happy if we moved out of the city down the Peninsula). I have also been thinking about this a lot recently. I truly believe that collective spaces for community, like the Great Highway Park, are what make it feel possible to raise a family in this city. I would infinitely prefer having a tiny apartment and glorious parks for everyone over something like a big private backyard just for me and my family. Thank you for sharing your thoughts in this lovely piece!
LikeLike
This letter perfectly captures the community spirit that car-free spaces foster in San Francisco. The vision of families connecting, children playing safely, and neighbors sharing smiles paints a hopeful and compelling picture of what our public spaces could be. Creating more areas where people can relax without worrying about traffic is a fantastic way to enhance both safety and quality of life. I’m voting yes on K because spaces in San Francisco don’t just have to be about transportation—they’re about creating a sense of belonging and joy for all.
LikeLike
It’s so validating to read my exact sentiments shared by one of my fellow neighbors. Thank you for writing this beautiful piece, Lindsay! I can’t wait to vote yes on K this November to give the gift of an oceanfront park to our community now and for generations to come.
LikeLike
I can’t help but find it interesting that the three comments in agreement with the post were submitted at 4:59, 5:00, and 5:01. It’s pretty amazing how they were all of one mind at the same time…or perhaps they were simply one mind.
LikeLike
Thanks for writing this op ed, Lindsay! I’m a Richmond District resident and I will also vote Yes on K.
Many of our neighbors were resistant to car-free JFK, but it’s become such a beautiful place where, like you said, you’ll encounter all different kinds of people enjoying the space. I love seeing kids walking, biking, and rolling without a car in the world. Car-free spaces *are* inherently family friendly and we should be building a city where kids can get around safely and independently. Now we have the opportunity to build a similar space along our beautiful coast. Let’s do it! Yes on Prop K!
LikeLike
A very important articlemoturatna
LikeLike
Alyse, it’s ironic that you’ve theorized that there’s only one mind in support of Prop K when you are the only one to have commented twice out the first ten comments. Let me assure you, I’m a new person to comment here and I echo everything that’s been said as loudly as I reasonably can. In an effort to offer additional rather than redundant commentary, I’d like to also point other similar projects that have clearly added value to communities in both the short and long terms. The off-ramp from 101 that fed onto Fell Street was re-vamped in the 90’s. It faced major opposition as a potential traffic-clogger, since the version that we all know now is a series of intersections on Octavia street that have gardens, side streets, bike lanes, park space, food trucks, etc. It’s unequivocal success story. Not only is a great space for people to convene, but the adjacent neighborhood (Hayes Valley) became one of the most coveted placed to live and visit after the project was completed and not before.
Another example. The Embarcadero used to be a double-decker freeway. It was hostile to pedestrians, contaminated, blocked views of the Bay, etc. The embarcadero now is an absolute boon for businesses, restaurants, tourism, enjoyment of the scenery, etc. No one would ever wish that space were again made into a highway. This is a once-in-a-generation chance to bring similar opportunity to the neighborhood in the Outer Sunset. And yes, and I am someone who lives in the outer sunset and adjacent to the Great Highway specifically. So, it begs the question; what is it that you’re so afraid of, and what would help you feel good about community development on the beachfront?
LikeLike
The process here was ridiculously flawed and intentionally so. Political footballers.
LikeLike