Editor:
In 2014 more than 10,000 San Francisco residents signed a petition to put Proposition H on the ballot in a grassroots effort to protect Golden Gate Park from artificial turf. Proposition I, an opposing measure that would permit artificial turf in the Park, was put on the ballot by a group of seven Supervisors, including Supervisors Scott Wiener and David Chiu, at the behest of the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department, headed then, as now, by Phil Ginsburg.
David Chiu, as president of the Board of Supervisors, presided over some of the public hearings that were held from 2012 to 2014 and clearly favored the groups that were in favor of artificial turf fields as a review of the videos of those meetings shows. I attended some of those hearings and witnessed how the proponents of artificial turf were given precedence over those in favor of natural turf.
San Francisco Parks Alliance submitted ballot arguments opposing Proposition H. The Parks Alliance and Supervisor Chiu also submitted paid arguments in favor of Proposition I. David Chiu and Phil Ginsburg are on the same page. It is doubtful that justice will be served if City Attorney David Chiu is the one investigating Phil Ginsburg’s involvement with Parks Alliance.
David Romano
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
Chiu and Ginsberg are also on the same page concerning the Great Highway. Here is an email exchange between the City Attorney’s Office and me concerning the work being done on the “park” in spite of a pending legal action (the email reads from bottom to top):
Good morning,
We received your email regarding the City’s work to open the Upper Great Highway to pedestrians consistent with Proposition K. Information about this work, including its timing and scope, has been available on the Recreation and Park Department’s website. No court has invalidated Proposition K nor issued an order instructing the City to cease work on the Upper Great Highway. We believe the lawsuit filed lacks merit and plan to file a detailed response in court in anticipation of the court hearing in this matter.
Thank you for reaching out to our Office.
From: Alyse _ Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2025 3:48 PMTo: CityAttorney (CAT) Subject: Fw: Work being done on Upper Great Highway – THIRD REQUEST FOR RESPONSE
Dear City Attorney Chiu,
This is my THIRD request for a response. The work on the “park” continues as I write. Now, in addition to the stoplights being removed, all the street signs are gone. Scores of tree stumps and logs have been scattered about willy-nilly, and a giant spinning rock has landed at Lawton. We have an octopus at Sloat as well as giraffes and a dangerous bike parkour thing for children (with no padding underneath expect for a very thin layer of sand).
Why is this work being done in spite of the fact that there is a legal action against the city?? If the action is found to have merit – which I think it will – where are the millions of dollars going to come from to return the “park” to its intended purpose as a highway? Taxpayers pockets??
Once again, this my THIRD request for a response. Let me remind you that as a public servant, you are answerable to the public. I am part of that public. Please respond as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Alyse Ceirante
From: Alyse _ Sent: Friday, March 28, 2025 7:13 PMTo: cityattorney@sfcityatty.org Subject: Fw: Work being done on Upper Great Highway
Second request for response: I never received a response to this email. According to the court records, all named plaintiffs have been served a summons. Lack of knowledge of a legal action is no longer a viable excuse. Why is work still being done?
From: Alyse _ Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 6:03 PMTo: cityattorney@sfcityatty.org Cc: daniel.lurie@sfgov.org ; joel.engardio@sfgov.org ; rudy@sfbctc.org ; orglabor@sfbctc.org Subject: Work being done on Upper Great Highway
Dear City Attorney Chiu,
As you are aware, there is a legal action before the city (CPF25518967) concerning the legality of Prop K, which closed the Upper Great Highway to personal and commercial vehicles in order to create an “open recreational space”. However, there is a great deal of work being done on the highway, and, as a taxpayer, I have to ask why.
If the lawsuit is found to have merit, the Upper Great Highway will return to exactly that – a highway. Therefore, the amount of damage being done to the road at this time will be costly to repair. Crews have almost completed the removal and disposal of all traffic lights. These will be extremely costly to replace. If the work is stopped now, pending the outcome of the legal action, it will cost the city (i.e., the taxpayers) a lot less to return the highway to its original function.
Additionally, independent contractors are currently doing the all the work on the Upper Great Highway. It has always been my understanding that all city work is to be done by union workers in city employ. Why are independent contractors doing this work instead of city workers?
Thank you in advance for your timely response.
Sincerely,
Alyse Ceirante
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thank you for sharing this Alyse. It clearly shows that Chiu is totally in cahoots with Ginsberg and is not acting in the best interests of the people of San Francisco. Good for you in persevering and demanding answers
LikeLike
Good point. Although that was a long time ago and much has changed. He may assign the case to someone else in the department. You might suggest that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ginsburg has to go! Ginsburg claims he doesn’t know anything about the San Francisco Park Alliance problems? Should he?? I know where every dollar in my wallet comes from. Most people and businesses do. It’s true he was appointed by Newsome and knew nothing about parks, gardening, or recreation. You would think he had some financial responsibility of where the money is coming from and going. You think he’s just looking the other way??
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree with the author 100%. We can expect no oversight or consequences for the director of SF Rec and Park.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is the same City Atty Chiu who doesn’t believe he has to retain all text messages, emails, letters, memos, etc on City devices authorized to do City business under the long-standing Sunshine Ordinance? The law for which he’s whitewashed London Breed’s decade~ or so of flouting by actually publicly suggesting that deleting logs and messages arbitrarily was “good hygiene”?
When and from where does the check on this unbalanced power come? Federal Grand Jury, Patel’s FBI? As we’ve seen from the Brooke Jenkins kid gloves for withholding evidence, lying under Oath, disseminating protected court documents, etc, it’s obviously not coming from the CA State Bar Association…
“Hey Donald, want to investigate some San Francisco Democratic corruption?”
Well here it is staring us in the face day in and day out…
LikeLiked by 1 person