By Charles Perkins

Through Proposition G in 1996, the voters of San Francisco overwhelming decided to move from citywide elections for selecting the City’s 11 supervisors to district elections. As explained in proponent’s ballot arguments supporting the measure:

Citywide supervisors have to be accountable to their contributors, not to an identifiable district constituency of voters. District supervisors will have a better understanding of neighborhood issues. If you want supervisors more accountable to your individual concerns, support district elections.

In her paid ballot argument, San Francisco icon Sue Bierman explained that district elections would “give San Franciscans direct accountability over their supervisors” and would dramatically reduce election costs, as district supervisors would have to “address issues of concern to residents of the City’s neighborhoods – not the interests of a few wealthy contributors” from outside the district. 

Sunset District Supervisors Joel Engardio (D4) and Myrna Melgar (D7) were responsible for placing Proposition K on the ballot last year, which asked voters citywide whether they wished to have a new park out at the beach, thus rendering the permanent closure of the Upper Great Highway fait accompli. They did this even though the residents of District 4 and 7 overwhelmingly opposed the closure, which would massively disrupt many of their daily lives. 

Both Joel Engardio and Myrna Melgar failed miserably in fulfilling their obligations as district supervisors. One scary possibility is that they simply are ignorant of the role of the office they each hold. The even less charitable explanation, however, is, unfortunately, the most likely one: They intentionally did exactly what they were not supposed to do under the district election model by choosing to place the agendas of powerful (and wealthy) interests groups from outside the district ahead of their constituents’ needs. Most residents of Districts 4 and 7 do not support the Scott Wiener gentrification agenda, and do not support the Bike Coalition’s car-hating agenda. Yet Supervisors Engardio and Melgar kowtowed to these interests by ensuring that the Upper Great Highway would be permanently closed to drivers, to the significant detriment of the vast majority of their own constituents.

To add insult to injury, Supervisor Engardio’s massive financial advantage in the recall campaign has been well-documented in the local press, with most of his money coming from a few, mostly tech-industry donors who aren’t even residents of his district. This is the exact harm the voters attempted to eliminate when they shifted to district elections. If the supervisor is able to retain his seat, there is little doubt it will be a direct result of his money, which, as the District 4 residents have seen, allows him to pay professional out-of-district canvassers and flood residents with mailers and online advertising at levels at which the D4 grassroot recall proponents cannot compete. If he is successful, whose interests will Supervisor Engardio put first in the future, his constituents or those of his wealthy donors? Sue Bierman must be turning in her grave. 

Whether the recall is successful or the supervisor is saved by big money, I hope the exercise serves as a lesson and a reminder to Supervisor Melgar and all current and future supervisors. Unless and until the San Francisco reverts to citywide elections, their job first and foremost is to fight for the interests of the majority of their constituents; not to undermine those interests. 

Charles Perkins, representing the Concerned Residents of the Sunset organization.