Letter to the Editor: Recalling Engardio a Wasteful Exercise

Editor:

I greatly appreciate what Joel Engardio has done and continues to do for our district and believe the recall is a wasteful exercise.

I admit I did not vote for him when he was first elected, but his performance since taking office has completely changed my opinion. As the saying goes, “Actions speak louder than words,” and Supervisor Engardio and his staff have been very responsive and acted twice specifically on my behalf.

Once was to expedite a street repair in front of our house when the Muni bus was sending shockwaves through our and our neighbors’ properties every time it passed by. The other instance involved the SF Department of Building Inspection (DBI). Engardio’s office was able to get a response that would allow me a self-installed solar permit. When I asked DBI myself, I was told only a contractor could get such a permit.

I think trying to recall Supervisor Engardio is undemocratic. All Joel Engardio did was voice his opinion regarding Proposition K and the voters of San Francisco voted the way they did.

Few, including the recallers, contest that he has been effective. If we attempted to recall elected officials every time we disagree with their positions, we would have a recall every week!

Voters who are unhappy with his decisions will have the opportunity to express their belief at the ballot box in the regularly scheduled 2026 election. This seems to me the better way to go.

Terry Erickson

Categories: letter to the editor

Tagged as: Joel engardio, letter to the editor, recall, recall engardio, Sunset Beacon, Sunset District

Joel Engardio did not “merely voice his opinion”. He was the face and father of Prop K. He and the other 4 supervisors put it on the ballot at 5 pm on the last possible day for filing so there was no opportunity for organized opposition. He wrote and spoke frequently advocating for prop K using faulty data and arguments.

He said the Great Highway would not close until traffic mitigation had been in place – I hardly think two stop lights (at Sloat and Hwy 35 and at 41st and Lincoln) and moving Muni stops along Sunset Blvd qualify as mitigation for 20,000 vehicles/day on formerly residential streets. There’s no evidence to support that the diverted traffic from a closed Great Highway has been effectively addressed and many anecdotal accounts from people who live adjacent to the Great Highway of increased accidents along the Lower Great Highway, more speeding cars (particularly car and motorcycle rallies), and delayed emergency responses.

(There’s actually a video of a first responder attempting to answer a call during the rally last weekend with Weiner, Ginsburg and the 30-50 pro park people on the Great Highway when the rangers had to open the gates and the people move off the GH so the vehicle could get by). Engardio himself was not at that rally because he realizes how unpopular he has become because of his actions in permanently closing the Great Highway despite the residents living in entire western part of San Francisco (who are MOST affected by the closure) voting no by huge majorities. (70-80% in the outer Richmond and Parkside precincts in the Sunset).

Dean Preston, one of the five supervisors to sponsor Prop K, has lost his seat. Connie Chan never supported it (representing her constituents’ needs and opinions, something Engardio clearly did not do). London Breed lost her seat and before the election Dan Lurie opposed closing the Great Highway. If Engardio loses his seat by recall, the support for funding Prop K’s “park” in the face of cuts to Muni, Laguna Honda Hospital, public safety agencies, etc at City Hall will be diminished. So now we have an unused major traffic artery (the safest and most efficient north south artery for the west side of SF) and no money for a park (which was not needed given Ocean beach is right next to the GH and is far more used for recreation than the GH “park”).

I personally think Engardio was in secret discussions to close the GH permanently for months and months before Prop K was filed, thereby short circuiting the 2026 discussions at the BOS called for with the original “temporary” closure. How else can you explain the rapid announcement of the California Coastal Conservancy’s grant immediately after the vote? The accelerated announcements from Park and Rec about all the art and structures to be developed (where is the money coming from)?

Engardio should being recalled for his lack of transparency, the manner in which he worked to close the Great Highway permanently contrary to original compromise with the temporary closure, and the lost of trust in him by the voters in his district.

LikeLiked by 2 people

2 replies »

Christina Shih says:

March 5, 2025 at 3:04 pm

Joel Engardio did not “merely voice his opinion”. He was the face and father of Prop K. He and the other 4 supervisors put it on the ballot at 5 pm on the last possible day for filing so there was no opportunity for organized opposition. He wrote and spoke frequently advocating for prop K using faulty data and arguments.

He said the Great Highway would not close until traffic mitigation had been in place – I hardly think two stop lights (at Sloat and Hwy 35 and at 41st and Lincoln) and moving Muni stops along Sunset Blvd qualify as mitigation for 20,000 vehicles/day on formerly residential streets. There’s no evidence to support that the diverted traffic from a closed Great Highway has been effectively addressed and many anecdotal accounts from people who live adjacent to the Great Highway of increased accidents along the Lower Great Highway, more speeding cars (particularly car and motorcycle rallies), and delayed emergency responses.

(There’s actually a video of a first responder attempting to answer a call during the rally last weekend with Weiner, Ginsburg and the 30-50 pro park people on the Great Highway when the rangers had to open the gates and the people move off the GH so the vehicle could get by). Engardio himself was not at that rally because he realizes how unpopular he has become because of his actions in permanently closing the Great Highway despite the residents living in entire western part of San Francisco (who are MOST affected by the closure) voting no by huge majorities. (70-80% in the outer Richmond and Parkside precincts in the Sunset).

Dean Preston, one of the five supervisors to sponsor Prop K, has lost his seat. Connie Chan never supported it (representing her constituents’ needs and opinions, something Engardio clearly did not do). London Breed lost her seat and before the election Dan Lurie opposed closing the Great Highway. If Engardio loses his seat by recall, the support for funding Prop K’s “park” in the face of cuts to Muni, Laguna Honda Hospital, public safety agencies, etc at City Hall will be diminished. So now we have an unused major traffic artery (the safest and most efficient north south artery for the west side of SF) and no money for a park (which was not needed given Ocean beach is right next to the GH and is far more used for recreation than the GH “park”).

I personally think Engardio was in secret discussions to close the GH permanently for months and months before Prop K was filed, thereby short circuiting the 2026 discussions at the BOS called for with the original “temporary” closure. How else can you explain the rapid announcement of the California Coastal Conservancy’s grant immediately after the vote? The accelerated announcements from Park and Rec about all the art and structures to be developed (where is the money coming from)?

Engardio should being recalled for his lack of transparency, the manner in which he worked to close the Great Highway permanently contrary to original compromise with the temporary closure, and the lost of trust in him by the voters in his district.

LikeLiked by 2 people

Lian Chang says:

March 6, 2025 at 10:37 am

Terry, thank you so much for sharing why you don’t agree with this recall!

Joel is up for re-election next year and Sunset voters will have an opportunity to choose between him and all other candidates that step forward. A recall this year is not only wasteful, but (because any replacement would be appointed by the mayor) takes that actual choice out of the hands of Sunset voters.

LikeLike