Editor:
Supervisor Joel Engardio’s tendency to prioritize his agenda over his constituents’ needs is illustrated by his recent SF Standard interview. Billed as an opportunity for community engagement, it served as little more than a PR stunt. No member of the public was allowed to speak directly with Engardio, and the hosts failed to hold him accountable for his answers.
Similarly, his handling of the Proposition K debacle demonstrates his willingness to gaslight his constituents to push through his agenda. Despite the lack of a concrete plan or budget, Engardio worked with powerful interest groups to steamroll over community opposition and advance a measure that benefited certain stakeholders at the broader community’s expense.
Unfortunately, Engardio’s attempts to control the narrative and silence dissenting voices do not stop with his actions. He has cultivated a group of supporters on Nextdoor who act as his personal army, ready to attack anyone who dares to criticize him or his policies.
This behavior is disturbing, as it stifles healthy debate and creates an atmosphere of fear and intimidation. Even well-written and respectful articles from reputable sources have been flagged as “disrespectful” by these Nextdoor moderators simply because they challenge Engardio’s preferred narrative.
This kind of censorship is unacceptable in a healthy democracy and reinforces the need for greater transparency and accountability in our political discourse. We must be free to express our opinions and engage in open and honest debate without fear of retribution from those in power or their supporters.
I anticipate that some may accuse me of being overly critical or ruining what they see as a harmless, sentimental post from Engardio. However, it is essential to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and to call out instances where they prioritize their interests over those of their constituents.
Engardio has repeatedly demonstrated a pattern of behavior that is harmful to the community he was elected to serve. From his dismissive attitude towards public engagement to his gaslighting tactics during the Prop. K controversy, he has shown that he is more interested in maintaining a positive public image than in truly listening to and serving his constituents.
While some may see my comments as negative or unfair, it is essential that we speak out against this kind of behavior and demand more responsible and accountable leadership in our district. Until Engardio takes concrete steps to make amends for the harm he has caused, he does not deserve to be given a free pass for his actions.
It is ironic that Engardio and his supporters are decrying the recall effort as wasteful, given the amount of time, energy and resources that he has expended on damage control. Rather than taking responsibility for his actions and engaging in meaningful dialogue with his constituents, Engardio is focused solely on protecting his image and position of power.
Moreover, Engardio spending thousands, if not millions, of dollars on YouTube ads, mailers and volunteer efforts to stop the recall petition reinforces this effort’s need. If Engardio were truly confident in his leadership and his ability to serve his constituents, he would welcome the opportunity for a fair and democratic evaluation of his performance.
These examples highlight the need for more transparent and accountable leadership in our district. We deserve a supervisor willing to listen to and engage with constituents, prioritizing the community’s needs over personal or political gain.
We deserve a supervisor who is genuinely committed to serving our community, not just their ego. It is time to recall Joel Engardio and demand the kind of leadership that puts the people’s needs first. Until he makes amends for the harm he has caused and starts genuinely engaging with the community, he does not deserve to act as if everything is fine with his phony photo ops.
Wendy Liu
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
Well written and explains why we need to get rid of him. He is like a tick that needs to be removed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Wendy, for such a thoughtful and succinct analysis of why Engardio should be recalled. As you so aptly point out, he puts his ego before the needs of his constituents in all aspects of his leadership. He lacks the sensitivity and sensibility to be a strong leader. As you point out, we deserve better! Recall Engardio!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Wendy: well said and on point. We need elected officials that are accountable to their constitutes and willing to represent them, rather than their own political aspirations. He has betrayed entire neighborhoods of working class people and has no respect for the culture(s) of the working class.
Sincerely,
Marty Murphy
sfpoliticshub.com
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent analysis of the Great harm Joel has and will continue to inflict on his constituents. His constant gaslighting and shocking lack of empathy reveals a psycho-sociopathic mind set that in his mind justifies his ego-driven acts. He seems incapable of self-awareness. The only outcome that protects us will be his recall and the installation of a REAL resident of the Sunset who will shield us from Yimbys and rich tech bros and deveopers. Vote for the recall!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Accusing district 4 people who are not for the recall and/or voted yes on K as a “..cultivated group of supporters on Nextdoor who act as his personal army, ready to attack anyone who dares to criticize him or his policies” is an insult to your neighbors.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Is this the Sunset Beacon or the Joel Engardio hate club? It seems like every other article here is an increasingly bizarre personal attack (your complaint is that he mentioned his wedding anniversary in a nextdoor post? really? this is what you think Sunset residents spend their days worried about?) rather than actual news about the neighborhood.
That’s even more strange when public filings show that “Kozak Publishing dba Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon” is among the early donors to the recall. I’ve genuinely never heard of a corporate entity that professes to be a newspaper donating to a political campaign, and it raises the question of whether the Sunset Beacon exists to inform the community or is a really just part of some kind of propaganda effort?
LikeLike
I have addressed the donation issue with Paul Kozakiewicz who made the contribution on his own behalf. He used to own the Richmond Review and Sunset Beacon but sold it to me six years ago. It appears the City has old information in its records. Paul will contact the City upon his return from a vacation to clear up the mistake. Michael Durand, editor and publisher.
LikeLike
Wow, the irony here is so thick you could cut it with a knife! Accusing us of running a ‘propaganda effort’ while your guy Joel Engardio is backed by corporate billionaires and running his own anti-recall propaganda machine? Classic projection, folks!
But let’s be real, what do you expect from a group of people who seem more interested in defending their political tribe than engaging with the real concerns of the community? This dismissive and narcissistic attitude is exactly what’s wrong with politics today.
And let’s not forget that our grassroots recall effort is running on fumes while Engardio and his supporters have access to millions of dollars from corporate donors. Talk about a rigged game!
Furthermore, my criticism of Engardio is based on his actions and behavior as a public official, not on any personal vendetta. It’s important to hold elected officials accountable for their actions, regardless of their political affiliation.
Finally, I would argue that Engardio’s mention of his wedding anniversary in a Nextdoor post is just one small example of his lack of focus on the real issues facing our community. Yes we should be outraged and my article had you bothered to actually read it explains it so.
LikeLike
Hi Wendy. Maybe we aren’t understanding each other here. Engardio isn’t “my guy.” I think I’ve met him maybe once and I’m not a billionaire, part of a propaganda machine, or a member of any political tribe. I didn’t even particularly care for Proposition K. It’s not about that.
My point is that I used to come to this site for information about what’s happening in the neighborhood, and yet in recent months it seems to have been taken over by a small number of people making what appear to me to be personal attacks. I fully trust you when you say you you carry no personal vendetta, but please understand from an outsider that this whole page, which started off complaining that a politician mentioned his wedding anniversary in a social media post and went on to comments accusing him of a “psycho-sociopathic mind set,” talk of bullying armies, conspiratorial claims about nextdoor moderators, likening an elected representative to a disease-carrying pest…please understand how that might come across as personal.
More importantly, it feels increasingly disconnected from any actual policy, the needs and challenges of our neighborhood, the financial crisis at our schools…those are the kinds of things I’m coming to the Sunset Beacon to learn about. It really feels toxic and unproductive. It’s not clear to me what you hope to accomplish, but please understand how toxic your approach appears to someone who just wants what’s best for our neighborhood and doesn’t care for the personal attacks and animosity that I keep seeing here.
LikeLike
“likening an elected representative to a disease-carrying pest”
Welcome to the concept of the 1st amendment? Where did you say you were from? In the SUNSET we speak truth to corrupt power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s literally hilarious to me that a private donation made by an individual to a valid and popular political cause is somehow questionable, but Engardio’s Billionaire-backed dark money PR machine hiring notorious liars like Sam Singer and Jen Nossikoff to defend himself from the “somehow unfair” discontentment shared by a huge percentage of his constituency (which he ignored deliberately and continues to gaslight as able) doesn’t give you any pause whatsoever. Engardio is a liar and has been caught many, many times trying to pretend otherwise. When his constituents are outraged by that, instead of admitting the wrong he doubles down on gaslighting and PR blitzes. So to defend THAT record while trying to be upset about community voices raised in opposition to it, and then point to a single political donation by the former owner of a publication as if “proof”? It’s mind-boggling.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Was this article edited down? When I first read the article, I thought your objection to Joel’s mention of his anniversary was that it was mentioned in the same breath as Valentine’s Day and Chinese New Year. If I remember correctly, you felt that this debased the significance of this important holiday for Chinese people. (I wish the article had not been edited as you said it so much better than I ever could.) Anyway, perhaps I am thinking of different article.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi, Alyse: I did edit the letter. While some may not approve of the supervisor mentioning Valentine’s Day along with the Chinese New Year, I determined it was not an issue reflecting on his job as our community’s representative. Michael Durand, editor and publisher.
LikeLike
I don’t recall any editing of Engardio’s misrepresentations or those of his (paid) sycophant Jen Nossikoff when they invented verifiably untrue talking points. Why do you as editor feel the need to protect Engardio from one person’s opinion of how his PR focus is both insulting and demeaning, but somehow feel no such need to question at all the myriad odious falsehoods made in public (on your forum) by the same political actor and his disingenuous agents? It’s a baffling choice but I’m sure you have your reasons, yet it smacks of censorship and protection that I don’t see anyone else benefiting from. Perhaps if you’re going to edit the Letters you’ve decided to print here, you should denote that fact in bold at the top, and elsewhere put forward some specific criteria regarding topics and things you’re going to unilaterally decide not to print, even after the fact as in this case? I’m also personally insulted by Engardio’s constant PR pandering, and I think it’s entirely valid to both feel and point out how he simultaneously “uses” the Lunar New Year talking point (and anything else he can think of) in a token manner and by faint praise and segue reduces it to just that, a PR talking point, not something he’s genuinely a part of or interested in. Edit when you need to I suppose, but this doesn’t seem to meet a bar of necessity and appears unfairly applied, all but silently denoted after the fact when people happened to notice the omission. It’s a valid, reasonable opinion and I think she was correct in calling him on it. Now the edit itself has become a bit of a controversy (in lieu of a demonstrably compelling reason for it), and people (like myself) are going to wonder just what else is going to get censored if it doesn’t meet some unwritten bar of editorial approval – And why only when it’s in defense of this recalled and dissembling shambles of a supervisor, one notices, does that editorial power get used in this way? What else is being edited out of Letters you publish here, and why exactly?
LikeLiked by 1 person