Editor:
The recall effort against Supervisor Joel Engardio is built on the false claim that he somehow deceived voters about his stance on the Upper Great Highway. But nothing could be further from the truth.
Engardio was always clear about his position. As a candidate in 2022, he opposed a ballot measure (Prop. I) that would have kept the road open 24/7. At a candidate debate, he said the weekend compromise was the better alternative than eliminating the park completely with Prop. I. He also made it clear that turning it into a full-time park was always a possibility. He even warned that state agencies were planning to permanently close the Great Highway Extension (South of Sloat) in the near future because of severe coastal erosion. His campaign website in 2022 said: “That stretch of road is literally falling into the ocean, so all southbound traffic will be forced to turn left at Sloat. This will create new traffic pain points that we need to work to understand and mitigate now, and not wait until it happens. This is an opportunity to create a permanent oceanside park from Lincoln to Sloat as we solve the traffic concerns.”
He was not hiding the ball on where he stood.
And when the time came to decide, instead of legislating behind closed doors even though the votes were there, he let voters make the call through Prop. K, which is the most transparent and democratic process. The deadline to put something on the ballot was June 18, 2024. This date is well known to all, and the opposition could have put their own measure on the ballot with four supervisors sympathetic to their cause. Again, there were no surprises to anyone who was following the issue.
There is also misinformation swirling about that should Joel be recalled, Prop. K would also be reversed. This is simply not true. Recalling Joel will have no bearing whatsoever on the opening of the park.
From the very beginning, Joel has been open and honest with his constituents – both about the inevitable closure of the Great Highway, but also his support for a permanent park. Just because some people don’t like the outcome doesn’t mean we should recall an effective supervisor.
I urge my fellow Sunset residents not to sign the recall petition.
Ryo Chiba
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
No surprises? Not hiding the ball? Not quite.
When he was running for office Joel Engardio sat in voter’s dining rooms drinking their coffee and promising he would not close the Great Highway 24/7. He did no community outreach before proposing Prop K to close the Great Highway 24/7. And then he submitted the Prop K ballot initiative at the last minute, making it impossible for opponents to put an opposing measure on the ballot. His effort to close the Great Highway was carefully orchestrated deception.
The impact of the closure is devastating. By his own admission there’ll be an increase in greenhouse gasses as cars spend extra time on crowded roads navigating quiet residential streets or backed up in bumper to bumper traffic on Sunset Blvd. Lower Great Highway residents are especially affected. And the Richmond District must now deal with a constant traffic jam on Chain of Lakes Drive in order to get between the Sunset and the Richmond.
Even his former campaign manager, Jason Leung, has stated he feels deceived by Engardio’s changed position.
Supervisor Engardio has betrayed his constituents and does not deserve to continue to serve them.
LikeLiked by 2 people
First off, thank you for your comment. I think everyone is entitled to their opinions and it’s a healthy community when people care enough about it to debate each other on how to make it better.
The intention of my letter was to highlight that the debate about the road has been part of the ongoing conversation for the entire district and that in my opinion there was no deception involved.
Could there have been more community outreach? Sure! But how much is enough? I might think he did enough, you might think he did too little, but I think it would be too much of an exaggeration to say that he did no community outreach.
It’s up to everyone to look at the facts, the history, and make their own judgement.
LikeLike
While it’s admirable to promote healthy debate and respect differing opinions, we can’t ignore the fact that deception was involved in the Great Highway issue. To claim that “there was no deception” flies in the face of the evidence presented.
Engardio’s last-minute submission of Prop K, combined with his previous promises and lack of meaningful community outreach, show a pattern of behavior that can only be described as deceptive. Minimizing these actions as simply a matter of opinion is not only dismissive but also shows a disregard for the concerns of those affected by the Great Highway closure.
We must hold our elected officials accountable when they fail to be transparent and engage with their constituents in good faith. Ignoring these issues only erodes trust in our democratic processes and undermines the legitimacy of our elected representatives.
I actually posted a letter https://richmondsunsetnews.com/2025/03/14/letter-to-the-editor-has-engardio-held-any-recent-town-hall-meetings/ where I asked my community directly if they knew of any community town halls that Engardio has hosted and NOT ONE person came up with any evidence of a town hall. The closest thing to community engagement came in the form of this “He met with us about 10 months ago at our building lobby. All he did was dismiss the issue of closing the GHWY, that the BOS voted for it and gave us the results of the votes. He said it was in the jurisdiction of the Coastal Commission. That spoke for itself for his lack of transparency, as least to me.”
This is hardly what you can call a high quality interaction.
LikeLike
I agree!
LikeLike
Ryo:
I don’t where begin. Your entire letter, every sentence, every paragraph, falls into one of two categories: 1) misstatement of material fact, i.e. “open and honest”; 2) omission of material fact, i.e. he did not state his intentions to put K on the ballot and talk to his constitutes beforehand. Joel Engardio has been a derisive and ineffective leader. That is why he is going to be recalled. He is a poor excuse for a representative of the Sunset District, who has disrupted and betrayed the community of working class for the benefit of elites and his own political aspirations. We mean to stop that. Support the Recall.
Sincerely,
Marty Murphy
sfpoliticshub.com
LikeLiked by 3 people
“I’m now at CafeMedia/AdThrive helping thousands of popular food, home, and lifestyle publishers rank higher in search.”
That explains something I guess.
LikeLike
“From the very beginning, Joel has been open and honest with his constituents”
These people are unreal. I honestly do not understand how they get there.
Deliberate blinders? IDK.
LikeLike
Wow. That’s a lot of misinformation for one letter. Let’s see if we can tidy it up a bit.
In regards to your statement, “At a candidate debate, he (Engardio) said the weekend compromise (regarding the Great Highway) was the better alternative than eliminating the park completely with Prop. I. He also made it clear that turning it into a full-time park was always a possibility”, can you please provide a citation as to when and where he says this? There must be a record of it somewhere, with a direct quote. In the televised and recorded debate I remember, he clearly stated he supported the compromise and said nothing about the possibility of turning the Great Highway into a park. In fact, when he was campaigning door-to-door, he assured voters he supported the compromise.
And what about this statement: “And when the time came to decide, instead of legislating behind closed doors even though the votes were there, he let voters make the call through Prop. K, which is the most transparent and democratic process.” There’s a lot to unpack here, but lets start with “the time came to decide”. Decide exactly what? The fate of the highway? The pilot program was mandated to run until December of 2025 – more than a year after K was put on the ballot. And what, exactly, was being legislated behind “closed doors”? Whether to close highway? Nope. As I mentioned above, a decision on that wasn’t slated to happen until 12/25, and the compromise legislation called for community input, not closed door meetings.
And what exactly do you mean by “even though the votes were there”? I assume you are spouting the oft repeated lie that “the Board would have voted to close it anyway”. How on earth could anyone have known that? Four supervisors were replaced last November changing the entire face and the character of the Board. How could anyone have known how they would have voted?
And how about these statements: “The deadline to put something on the ballot was June 18, 2024. This date is well known to all, and the opposition could have put their own measure on the ballot with four supervisors sympathetic to their cause.”? This is a downright lie. It is a well known fact – that can be verified through the Department of Elections – that Engardio submitted his initiative at the last possible moment before the submission period ended. It would have been impossible for the opposition to put anything on the ballot, even if every supervisor supported it. The filing period had closed.
Your implication that the vast majority of us who were blindsided by Engardio’s primary role in the closure of the highway were simply not paying attention is offensive beyond words.
Lastly, there is not a single one of us working on the recall who believe that Prop K will be overturned with the recall of Engardio. Do you really think we are that stupid?
Your arrogant and condescending attitude to those of us in D4 is unacceptable. You fabricate, out of thin air, “facts” to suit your narrative. Sorry, but that just doesn’t work.
Alyse Ceirante, District Four
LikeLiked by 2 people
“That stretch of road is literally falling into the ocean, so all southbound traffic will be forced to turn left at Sloat. This will create new traffic pain points that we need to work to understand and mitigate now, and not wait until it happens.”
First off, NO it LITERALLY is NOT. There is a National Guard station and a major pumping station, not to mention the sewer lines the city still depends on that will NOT EVER be “falling into the ocean” so the premise is just BS on its face. They are going to shore up what is now a roadway that connects GH to 35. But even if they didn’t, you take Sloat up 7 blocks and get on 35 anyway. They put in a traffic light there (which happens to be slower than the perfectly good stop sign that was there since forever, at least for most of every single day) and once on 35 you’re continuing South on your way to wherever, just fine. Do these people not even look at maps before just accepting Engardio’s pancake thin lies?
Secondly, why would you close down THE major thoroughfare BEFORE you’ve done the work you yourself claimed to need to do “and not wait until it happens” to mitigate “pain points”? I mean the logic there is just 180 degrees backwards in terms of forcing that misleading BS ballot measure, last minute, Billionaire-developer-backed, no room for opposition or even thorough study of the effects in time before implementation? It’s LUDICROUS. These people are not Sunsets, these people are transplants from BSville and they will buy anything.
I’m trying to keep this without any vitriol or “attacks” or anything that could be misconstrued or used to censor my thoughts, but I’ll admit it’s so damn flabbergasting to read gaslit non-factual talking points from e-marketing types when it’s a REAL issue that REALLY affects the district. It’s just mind boggling.
The reason Engardio is being recalled is because he lied. Full stop. Repeating the lies does not somehow absolve them, and this attempt is just ridiculous cotton candy BS that people who care about truth in governance and accountability in the Sunset are just frankly enraged by. We survived Breed’s folly, and we can end Engardio’s and get on with representation of basic Sunset interests. Right now.
That’s why everyone I know is signing the petition, and though I’m down to talk to and try to understand every differing opinion, this one I just do not get at all. It’s about the lies. I can’t hang with that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Complete Piffle, Ryo…
He started by violating the Brown Act purposely, with the blessings and assistance from Sen. Weiner, and Luther Lux who has no license to practice law in CA, but certainly has become the Engardio mouth-piece! These males have a hidden agenda! Why would he or anyone need Another Park when the grand Historic Golden Gate Park is right there, and Ocean Beach, another park also right there! Engardio has managed to Landlock, and now Gridlock his constituents that actually live where he and his cronies have shut down our access to commute in a timely and direct route!
Where do you live Ryo? Lux has touted that it will only add 3 minutes to a drive, but neither you, Engardio, or that Lux fellow know that it takes 3 minutes or more to get out of our garages, onto the driveway, and then into the Backed-Up traffic to proceed to our destinations! Is Lux a work-at-home dude? Engardio doesn’t even live in that area, does not visit that area unless he wants enhance his Entertainment Director agenda/resume, with very loud music with his speakers facing toward the unintended audience, not the party attendees!!
He has too many irons in the fire because he is looking upward toward what is his actual goal is, on the backs of his constituents, as the Hand Puppet of a higher power in CA government, unless he is RECALLED for his Betrayal, and the pending Lawsuit is honored!
Again, Ryo, where do you live?
Peri
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Peri, I appreciate your response to my letter. I think everyone is entitled to their opinion and we live in a healthy community when there’s active debate. I hope that we can both agree that it’s preferable to apathy.
To answer your question, yes, I do live in the sunset.
Unfortunately even if I wanted to mysteriously hide my identity in the shadows of internet anonymity, in order to submit this letter to the editor, I had to use my real name and SF property records are public.
LikeLike
Ryo, thank you for correcting some of the misunderstandings that have been swirling around the park and Joel’s position on it!
LikeLike
Oh, please! You’re thanking Ryo for “correcting misunderstandings” when it’s clear they’ve done nothing of the sort. If anything, they’ve only added to the misinformation and dismissed the real concerns of the community. It’s time to stop pretending that Joel Engardio and his supporters are the victims here and start acknowledging the damage they’ve caused to the Sunset District.
LikeLike
Specifically? What a joke, get real please.
LikeLike
Oh my, these comments have descended into a full-blown rant that is virtually unreadable. I’ll make just a couple of points:
1. I voted no on Prop K, but I can see reasons why it would make a nice park if RPD can solve the shifting sand problem that no one is yet talking about. I’ve walked on our beaches for 40 years and the Great Highway, especially south a Sloat is, indeed, falling onto the beach and into the ocean. You only need to walk on that part of the beach to see the cave-ins.
2. Supervisor Engardio has been great for our district, responsive to his constituents, adding police and safety resources to our neighborhood, advocating for algebra in middle schools, and starting the popular nigh markets. If he is recalled, who knows who our Mayor will pick to represent us.
3. I don’t think he knowingly deceived anyone about his vision for Ocean beach. I am a senior citizen who doesn’t pay much attention to politics, and I knew he was in favor of a park from his newsletter and from his attendance at some of the park activities. You could have asked him directly if you weren’t sure of his position. I don’t believe he was keeping it a secret.
LikeLike
Hm, maybe you should investigate how it was placed on the ballot deliberately at the last minute to avoid debate and/or opposition, how they used deliberately false (5x inflated) information about the cost of sand removal (which ironically they’ll still need to do for the “roadway park”), even greater % misrepresentations about how often per year the roadway was actually closed due to sand shifts, how they pretended it would bring about “urban cooling” and “protect the environment” when it does the opposite on both counts, etc.
It seems to me you’re deliberately choosing to avoid looking at this in detail. This is also a strategy the supporters of K have commonly used, I’ll note in passing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
While it’s great to acknowledge some positive aspects of Engardio’s work, it’s important to not overlook the valid concerns raised about his lack of transparency and community engagement. It’s not about whether he kept his position a “secret,” but rather, whether he genuinely engaged with and listened to his constituents’ concerns.
Your personal experience of receiving newsletters and seeing him at park activities doesn’t negate the experiences of others who have found him unresponsive or dismissive. As for the idea that he didn’t “knowingly deceive” anyone, the manner in which Prop K was pushed forward, without adequate community outreach or opportunity for opposition, suggests otherwise.
Lastly, the issue of the Great Highway’s deterioration is certainly a valid concern, but it should be addressed through open dialogue and collaboration, not by rushing through a measure that negatively impacts many residents. Let’s hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and demand genuine engagement with our community.
Contrary to the claim that Engardio has been responsive and engaged with his constituents, I have direct evidence https://richmondsunsetnews.com/2025/03/14/letter-to-the-editor-has-engardio-held-any-recent-town-hall-meetings/
that he has not participated in any meaningful community events or town halls to discuss Prop K and its impacts. While some may have had positive experiences with Engardio, it’s crucial to recognize that this is not the experience of all residents.
The way in which Prop K was pushed forward without adequate community engagement and transparency cannot be dismissed, and it raises questions about Engardio’s commitment to truly representing the interests and concerns of his constituents. We deserve a leader who values open dialogue and collaboration, not one who rushes through measures that negatively impact our community without genuine discussion.
LikeLike
Hey Wendy, thank you for your thoughtful comment.
I believe your perspective offers the most balanced counterpoint among the various colorful responses to my letter.
I agree that our discussion should focus on community engagement and transparency. This is in contrast to claims of deception, lies, or betrayal, which as my letter suggests, I find less grounded in reality.
I hope readers will consider these arguments and decide for themselves which viewpoints they feel are more reasonable.
LikeLike
“This is in contrast to claims of deception, lies, or betrayal, which as my letter suggests, I find less grounded in reality.”
GASLIGHTING!
LikeLike
Hi Ryo, While I appreciate your acknowledgement of my comment as a balanced counterpoint, I must strongly disagree with your continued dismissal of the claims of deception, lies, and betrayal. These are not unfounded accusations, but valid concerns backed by evidence of Engardio’s actions during the Prop K process. Ignoring these issues does a disservice to the residents of D4, who have a right to expect transparency and honesty from their elected officials.
It’s time to face the reality of Engardio’s actions and hold him accountable. Living in an alternate universe where he is seen as a saintly figure does nothing to address the very real harm his decisions have caused to our community. Let’s keep the focus on the facts and demand the level of representation we deserve.
LikeLike
I agree. There was little community outreach. When, exactly, was the community meeting where Engardio said, beforehand, I am working to close the Great Highway 24/7, please come and give your input?
LikeLike