Vote ‘Yes’ for Engardio Recall
James Madison expressed it best, meaning governmental power, in a Dec. 2, 1829, speech, to wit, “The essence of government is power, and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” (Incidentally, such words are inscribed in the Madison Memorial Hall, Library of Congress James Madison Memorial Building, Washington, D.C. )
One example is Mr. Joel Engardio, the justified object of a recall organized by his constituents in Board of Supervisors District 4 (like me) and residents of the Richmond District led by retired Police Commander Rich Corriea who can’t sign the recall petition or vote in the recall election but can assist and donate campaign “gelt.”
On May 22, 10,985 recall voter signatures were delivered to the Department of Elections; of those, 8,200 were secured by volunteers, the remainder by paid signature-gatherers hired because of the intricacies of identifying District 4 resident registrants. I’m personally proud of my record qualifying (and winning) all initiatives I sponsored from 1972 until 1985 as a Board of Supervisors member and 1987 until 1998 as a state senator while using paid signature collectors only once – to qualify for the ballot in November 1986 as an Independent candidate for the California State Senate.
On May 29, the director of elections ruled that our recall petition qualified for a special election on Sept. 16 to eject the double-crossing Engardio, so let’s get ready to rumble.
Additionally, the Petition for Writ of Mandate filed March 11 in Superior Court by Matthew Boschetto, Albert Chow, Lisa Arjes and Livable SF to set aside Proposition K and its Nov. 5, 2024 passage by citywide voters (not Sunset voters, 65% of whom voted “no” on Proposition K and Richmond voters, 70% of whom rejected it) will be argued to Judge Jeffrey Ross, a one-time assistant D.A., in Room 606, 400 McAllister St. at 1:30 p.m., June 2, and I urge readers to attend. I will.
Jim Sutton, Esq. and Eli Love, Esq. represent the petitioner. The city attorney defends the Board of Supervisors and Recreation and Park Department. Sutton is probably the best election law attorney in San Francisco. The suit is based upon state preemption of traffic control and roads under California Vehicle Code Section 21(a), meaning voters have no authority to close a public highway (i.e., the Upper Great Highway) to vehicular traffic. Justice must prevail!
So long as we have a fighting district attorney, namely, Brooke Jenkins, we can be assured it will be a safer San Francisco. In the past four months, D.A. Jenkins has recorded reasons my faith in endorsing her for that important office have been highlighted by public statements which bear recitation for all San Franciscans. On Feb. 7, she reminded the public: “Although your friends on the bench may not like transparency around their decisions, San Franciscans have asked for and deserve to know what is happening at the courthouse …. The judges’ robes are not a cloak of invisibility that confer upon them the power to act in secret nor does it turn them into deities such that their decisions become unquestionably wise. The citizens get to have their own opinions on judicial performance and for that, they need the facts … the judiciary, like all the branches of government, is subject to public scrutiny and criticism – from the U.S. Supreme Court to the local bench. Transparency is critical for maintaining trust in the criminal justice system.”
On March 24, D.A. Jenkins reminded us that she has pointed out rulings of San Francisco judges who are subject to terms (six years) and elections “because transparency is a cornerstone of our democracy.” Jenkins concluded: “The judiciary, like all the branches of government, is subject to public scrutiny and criticism – from the U.S. Supreme Court to the local bench.” (Emphasis added.) Finally, on April 29, D.A. Jenkins relative to a retired San Francisco Superior Court judge (whom I won’t identify because she remains supportive of Chesa Boudin, Esq., the D.A. we threw out of office with a 2022 recall!) that “it’s disheartening … to see that there are no bounds to the types of political attacks happening in our country.” I expect San Francisco voters will re-elect Brooke Jenkins as our district attorney next year. I hereby endorse her now!
By publication time, we’ll know whether the U.S. Congress and President “Bone Spur” Trump have changed federal income tax law by eliminating, increasing or allowing to remain the same with a $10,000 limit to deducting our California income tax from the U.S. income tax we owe. In 2017, Trump and Republican Congress members passed the $10,000 deduction. If eliminated, tax experts estimate Californians will pay about $12 billion more in annual U.S. income taxes in 2026. If the $10,000 limit on deducting state income tax from your federal income tax return is ended, it’ll adversely affect taxpayers in California, New York and New Jersey, all high state income tax Democratic domains. That’s another decision you’ll know by press time.
An unknown author advised all Americans: “Drive carefully, Uncle Sam needs every taxpayer he can get.” Console yourself. “The wealth of experience is one possession that has not yet been taxed.”
Vote “yes” to say “so long” to Engardio!
Quentin Kopp is a former San Francisco supervisor, state senator, SF Ethics Commission member, president of the California High Speed Rail Authority governing board and retired Superior Court judge.
Categories: Commentary
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
Thank you, Judge Kopp, for supporting the recall of Joel Engardio.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Madison is rolling in his grave hearing this quote used to justify an attempt to void an election result, thereby silencing the voice of the people.
LikeLike
If Madison’s rolling in his grave, it’s probably from motion sickness caused by the gaslighting on Prop K. Let’s be real: the actual voice of the people — in the Sunset — voted 65% NO. But the rest of the city was flat-out misled about what Prop K really meant. Tons of voters had no idea that this ‘park’ came at the cost of shutting down the Upper Great Highway — a vital commuter and emergency route used by over 20,000 drivers. This isn’t democracy. It’s bait and switch.
And if you’d bothered to read the article, you’d see this recall isn’t just justified — it’s necessary. Engardio betrayed the people who elected him. The recall is the people’s voice in action. Maybe try reading this before waving your ‘democracy’ flag: https://thevoicesf.org/great-highway-robbery/
The only thing being silenced here is the daily struggle of families who can’t afford to be late to work, lose childcare, or sit in traffic hell just so a few folks can ‘enjoy’ a windy patch of concrete.
LikeLike
The text right next to the yes/no choices on every single ballot read “Permanently Closing the Upper Great Highway to Private Vehicles to Establish a Public Open Recreation Space.” Every voter capable of basic literacy was given the information, in bold font, that the measure permanently closed the Upper Great Highway to private vehicles. How could anybody have possibly been misled as you suggest? How could “tons” of voters read the words “Permanently Closing the Upper Great Highway to Private Vehicles” and yet not understand that they were voting on the closure of the Upper Great Highway?
More people visit the park in three weekdays than signed the recall petition in four months.
LikeLike
Dear Kathryn,
Ah yes, the classic “if it was on the ballot, everyone must’ve fully understood it” argument. As if voter confusion has never existed — especially in a city where ballot language is notoriously vague and overwhelming. Just because something is printed doesn’t mean voters absorbed or understood the impact. Many were told this was about creating something, not taking away a major emergency and commuter route. Ask around — plenty of well-meaning people had no idea what Prop K would actually do.
Also, if you’re so confident in your point, why sidestep the part where 65% of Sunset voters — the people who live here and use the UGH — voted no? Or the part where Engardio ran on keeping it open, then flipped? That’s not literacy — that’s betrayal.
And let’s not pretend foot traffic volume makes up for functional infrastructure loss. Are you seriously saying a few weekday strolls are worth putting working families, disabled residents, and kids in gridlock?
Spin it how you want, but this recall didn’t come out of nowhere. It’s what democracy looks like when trust is broken.
Let’s address the whopper: “More people visit the park in three weekdays than signed the recall petition in four months.” That is categorically false.
I live here. My neighbors live here. Some have cameras pointed right at the Upper Great Highway — and guess what? It’s basically a ghost town on weekdays. A few joggers, the occasional cyclist, maybe someone filming a drone reel, but “crowds”? Absolutely not. This isn’t Dolores Park.
Meanwhile, over 10,000 recall signatures were gathered — the majority by volunteers — in a historically low-turnout district. That’s not just impressive, it’s democracy in motion.
Trying to erase that civic action by citing make-believe attendance numbers from your “park” doesn’t strengthen your point — it reveals just how flimsy it is.
LikeLike
Ever read a Terms of Service agreement? Yeah… me neither. And most voters don’t read those thick ballot booklets cover to cover either. People vote based on headlines, ads, mailers, and what they hear from friends.
And let’s be real — the Prop K propaganda either buried or outright skipped over the fact that it meant shutting down the Upper Great Highway. Tons of folks had no idea.
LikeLike
I’m not talking about ballot booklets or anything that requires even the slightest amount of research. I mean the actual ballot paper used the words “permanently closing it to private motor vehicles seven days a week” placed between the letter K and the Yes/No bubbles. (In the interest of full accuracy, looking up a sample ballot online now, I see that the full sentence printed on the ballot was “Shall the City use the Upper Great Highway as public open recreation space, permanently closing it to private motor vehicles seven days a week, with limited exceptions?” and those words were not in fact printed in bold. I regret my error.) The words “permanently closing it to private motor vehicles seven days a week” were printed and on every single ballot in English and translated into Chinese, Spanish, and Filipino, plus reference ballots available in Korean, Japanese, Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese at every polling place. That is not fine print buried in a Terms of Service agreement. Every voter capable of comprehending one or more of those languages merely had to look at the single sentence printed on their ballot right next to the letter K to know that they were voting on whether or not to permanently close the Upper Great Highway. I don’t think San Francisco voters are such ignoramuses that they can’t read the one sentence printed on their ballots that told them what they’re voting on. It seems kinder to assume that a majority of voters simply disagreed with you on this issue than it is to assume they’re idiots entirely unaware of the words “permanently closing it” printed a half inch away from the “yes” bubble on their ballots.
LikeLike
Thank you Judge Kopp! Being a native San Franciscan and born and raised in the Richmond district I couldn’t agree with you more! This abandoned highway is not a park nor ever will be a park. It is a 4 lane road next to the beach and a major link not only for the North and South side of the city, but also to Marin, and San Mateo counties. Why would anybody in their right mind want to go to the beach and stay in the asphalt parking lot and say “let’s play”? Golden Gate Park is a park, Mc Laren Park is a park, the Presidio is a park, but the Great Highway is not a park. This is a developer backed idea to encourage development of multi million dollar homes and ocean view condos. A private playground for the wealthy tech people. Second homes and beach houses for the wealthy. You had developer money pouring in against the people who live here with no money to fight back. That is how and why Prop K won, and even by a small margin. Money bought the election closing the Great Highway! Money money money you fools! Look at the money supporting Engardio. Its from millionaires and developers, not the people that live here. If you are ignorant enough to think this asphalt strip is for the people that live on the west side, you’re a sheep in a wolves den. The wasted money, traffic, and road rage is a result of Prop K. It is Friday 6/6/2025, 4:30PM and I am looking out at the Great Highway. In the last couple minutes I have seen 4 people, 2 of which actually walking on the paths and a couple bicycles zipping by for their electric bike workout. Many walkers still use the east and west pathways rather than the road for fear of getting ran over by speeding electric bikes. Since then, about 15 or more cars drove by on the lower Great Highway. Way more cars than humans! 17,000 to over 20,000 vehicles a day used the Grt Hwy, and that’s a true fact. Not the phony numbers quoted by Ginsburg at Park and Rec. Ginsburg has to go as well wasting tax payer money. Now he wants to charge people to park their cars in Golden Gate Park? Morons have taken over the city!! When the lights change at Lincoln and the Great Highway, the backed up cars make the turn and flood the Lower Grt Hwy and surface streets. What a mess Engardio created for greed and to further his political career. Time for the neighborhoods to take back the city from the developers and politicians. RECALL ENGARDIO!! WE DON’T WANT YOU!!
LikeLike
Can you name the real estate developers that you claim funded Prop K? Be specific. Surely you wouldn’t call us all “fools” unless you can back up your statement with facts, right?
LikeLike
You’re missing the forest for the trees. This isn’t about name-dropping one developer — it’s about exposing intent. Prop K was championed by politicians and organizations with deep, consistent ties to real estate interests: Scott Wiener, SPUR, YIMBY Action, and others who routinely push developer-first policies under the banner of “livability” and “equity.”
Their track record speaks volumes:
The Westerly at 2800 Sloat — 56 oceanfront condos, mostly uninhabited.
2700 Sloat — a 22-story luxury tower proposal that neighbors overwhelmingly opposed.
Engardio’s blog — openly pushing upzoning and ADUs without public consent or community-led planning.
All of this is happening without meaningful input from Sunset residents — just a steady stream of policies designed to reshape this district to suit investor and developer ambitions. So if you want a name, fine: Housing America Partners, LLC has been linked to the 2700 Sloat project. But if you think that’s the only relevant name in this conversation, you’re missing the larger architecture of power and profit driving this.
The real issue isn’t a single donor — it’s the political ecosystem intentionally paving the way (literally and figuratively) for unaffordable housing, congestion, and displacement.
LikeLike
tvnativesf said there was “developer money pouring in” for Prop K and “Money bought the election closing the Great Highway! Money money money you fools!” Therefore, there should be records of this “money money money” so we all know who is responsible for these acts. That’s all I asked for, wanting to know who these developers were that poured in this money.
I looked up the one name you provided, Housing America Partners, LLC. I am unable to find a record of either this company, its CEO Daniel Jimenez, or anyone reporting they were employed by Housing America Partners having contributed to Prop K. Would you kindly point me to some reference of where Housing America Partners poured money into the campaign?
LikeLike
How about $5,000 from BOMA, $4,000 from Alastair MacTaggart, and $3,00 from Gerry Sangiacomo all sending money to Engardio. Prop K mostly funded by YIMBY’s, Jeremy Stoppelman, Heidi Moseson, Stephen Dodson. Without YIMBY money, Engardio’s political career is over. YIMBY’s want to build, so who does the building? Developers! Did you know that going back to 2020, Scott Weiner has more donations from developers than any other politician in California? Why is that?
https://sftu.org/2020/01/16/scott-wiener-takes-more-real-estate-money-than-any-other-politician-in-the-california-legislature/
Engardio has to have Weiner at every political announcement event he has. He needs money from the Democrat coffers to win any election. BTW, Engardio cost the taxpayers more taxpayer money than any other candidate in San Francisco according to the San Francisco Standard, $665,000 in matching funds. https://sfstandard.com/2022/10/06/san-francisco-political-campaign-taxpayer-money/
It’s no secret that Engardio is Weiners protege. Engardio follows Weiners lead. When Engardio ran for supervisor, he downplayed his pro YIMBY beliefs running against Mar. Not until he was elected did he say he wants to see 8 story buildings on every corner of the major thoroughfares in the sunset. He didn’t mention that if you had 3 small houses in the middle of the block you should be able to build up to 8 stories. He wrote an article saying it was better for older people to move out of their homes and live in apartments and he was doing a favor to the older generation. What a joke!
Don’t forget the local YIMBY news of 2700 Sloat Blvd! Scott Weiner’s legislative moves made this all possible. This is Engardio’s district.
https://sfyimby.com/2023/07/renderings-revealed-for-50-story-skyscraper-in-sunset-district-san-francisco.html
https://sfyimby.com/2024/12/22-story-plans-for-2700-sloat-boulevard-in-sunset-district-san-francisco.html
Looks to me like Engardio fooled a lot of people.
LikeLike
Dear Kathryn,
Let’s be clear: this was never about whether voters could read a sentence. It’s about whether they were told the truth — and whether they understood the impact.
Yes, the words “permanently closing it to private motor vehicles” were on the ballot. But the Yes on K campaign framed it as a feel-good “park” project. They downplayed the reality: removing a vital east-west commuter and emergency route for over 20,000 daily users — with no viable replacement. That’s not informed voting. That’s marketing manipulation.
And the data backs this up: according to the Prop K heat maps, the bulk of Yes votes came from neighborhoods nowhere near the Upper Great Highway. People voted to shut down someone else’s road — a road they don’t rely on and may have never even driven. Why should they care if Sunset families now face brutal traffic, missed school bells, and late-night emergency delays?
That’s the real problem here: Prop K let people with zero skin in the game vote away our access to mobility. And if you think that’s democracy, imagine if we in the Sunset turned around and proposed ballot measures to close Columbus Ave, or rip out Dolores and Guerrero to build nothing but deluxe multi-million dollar condo highrises between those 2 streets. Sound extreme? That’s exactly the precedent Prop K sets — letting infrastructure decisions be made by people with no expertise and no consequences.
Last time I checked, urban planning isn’t part of a basic American education. Maybe we should stop pretending ballot box mob rule is the best way to govern traffic flow in a city with emergency access challenges, working class commuter lateness crises, and brutal north – south commute gaps.
This isn’t “democracy in action.” It’s planning by popularity contest — and we’re living in the wreckage.
Here’s the other thing: Prop K is now under an active lawsuit — because it’s that serious. You don’t get to hand-wave that away. This isn’t a petty disagreement. It’s a legal challenge about whether voters were even allowed to make this decision under state law. And no — this lawsuit is not “bogus.” In fact, never in San Francisco’s history has a supervisor acted with such blatant malfeasance as Joel Engardio did when he flipped on his promises, sold out his own district, and let other neighborhoods vote away our infrastructure.
P.S. And let’s not pretend Prop K is the only reason Engardio’s being recalled. It’s just the most obvious. The rest? There are plenty of well-documented failures — if you’re willing to look. But that takes nuance, attention to detail, and a genuine concern for this district…
Which, frankly, you’ve made it clear you don’t have.
LikeLike
Residents of D4 who attended the Ballot Simplification Committee meetings, where final decisions were made as to how Prop K would be described to voters in the Voter Pamphlet, witnessed representatives from the offices of Supervisors Engardio and Melgar repeatedly lobby to oppose having the words “commercial traffic” included as an accurate description of the daily traffic using the Great Highway. They were successful in having it deleted and “Permanently closing the Great Highway to private and commercial vehicles” was not printed. As someone living across the street from the highway and impacted daily by the diverted traffic, the thousands of vehicles per day that used the highway included commercial vehicles that now barrel through our neighborhood streets in front of our homes and sidewalks. There are photos and videos. Joel was very interested in keeping the dangerous situation that he knew would result from the passage of Prop K out of the information that was made available to voters on the other side of the city who lived nowhere near the highway and relied only on what they read or heard about it. He widely spread misinformation that it was a road that lost its utility, that it was closed to vehicles for sand removal more than two months a year, and that the west side wanted and would get a world class park in its place despite the fact that there was no funding for a park and the word “park”appeared nowhere in Prop K. He is not, and has not been, representing his constituents. His recall is necessary because the residents of D4 deserve someone who is honest, transparent, inclusive, and responsive to the needs of their community. Joel has proven he is none of those things. I agree with all the comments that are supporting his recall.
LikeLike
Dear Kathryn,
Let’s clear this up: I never said Housing America Partners directly funded Prop K. I brought them up because they’re tied to the 2700 Sloat project — one of several high-density developments enabled by the same pro-growth, pro-upzoning machinery that backed Prop K. That’s the real story here: a pattern.
And let’s be real — no, we don’t have a list of real estate developers who publicly wrote checks for Prop K. Why would we? Most aren’t foolish enough to openly link themselves to a campaign that actively harms neighborhoods. They work through proxies — nonprofits, PACs, lobbyists, and political allies who push their agenda while keeping developer names off the radar.
Look at Yelp’s CEO openly supporting the anti-recall — he’s proud to be YIMBY. But most developer interests don’t want that kind of visibility. They don’t need it. The system already favors them quietly.
What does matter is intent — and the track record speaks volumes: SPUR, Scott Wiener, YIMBY Action, Joel Engardio — who champions upzoning, backyard condos, and sweeping neighborhood changes with zero community input.
This is about a coordinated, top-down agenda that keeps remaking neighborhoods for profit — without our consent. If you don’t see how Prop K fits into that pattern, you’re either not looking closely enough… or hoping the rest of us won’t.
And honestly? This is the third or fourth time I’ve explained this to you. If it hasn’t landed by now, maybe it never will.
LikeLike