In Support of Supervisor Joel Engardio: A Call for Reason and Respect in our Civic Process
As longtime residents of District 4, I and my neighbors feel compelled to speak out in defense of our current Supervisor, Joel Engardio, whose contributions to our community have been significant, responsible and visionary.
Since taking office, Supervisor Joel has worked hard to uplift our neighborhoods. He has actively supported small businesses, helped organize night markets to stimulate the local economy, and accelerated long-delayed infrastructure projects, such as the L-Line Rail improvements-projects left unresolved by previous leadership. These are not minor achievements; they reflect a commitment to progress and responsiveness.
In the face of growing and environmental concerns, Supervisor Joel also advocated for the transformation of the Upper Great Highway into a coastal park, a move driven by scientific findings on ocean erosion and the long-term need for preservation. This was not a unilateral decision – it was supported by over 50% of voters in a public referendum. Many of us, including numerous neighbors and friends, believe this is a forward-thinking plan for the future.
And yet, despite these accomplishments, a group of individuals, motivated not by constructive disagreement, but seemingly by political agendas, are now pushing to recall Supervisor Joel over this single issue. This action is not only deeply unfair but sets a dangerous precedent.
We must consider the broader implications：
1. Is this a misuse of the recall process?
Recall is a democratic right, but it should not be wielded as a tool for pushing decisions some disagree with. Using it in this way erodes trust in public institutions and creates a climate where long-term planning becomes nearly impossible.
2. Are we ignoring the totality of his service？
Leadership should be evaluated holistically. Dismissing all the good work Joel has done simply because of one policy dispute shows a lack of appreciation for effective governance and community investment.
3. Are we dividing our community further?
This recall effort is not fostering constructive dialogue; it’s creating animosity and polarization. We should be uniting to face our challenges – not turning neighbors into adversaries.
4. Can we afford this distraction during a financial crisis?
With the City facing economic hardship and budget deficits, we need steady leadership and pragmatic solutions. A recall campaign wastes precious time, energy and public resources when we should be focusing on rebuilding our economy and infrastructure.
A Call To Our Community:
Supervisor Joel Engardio deserves fairness, not political sabotage.
Whether you agree with every decision he has made or not, we must recognize the value of thoughtful, engaged leadership. If we allow recall campaigns to be triggered every time someone disagrees with a policy, we risk paralyzing our City’s ability to govern at all.
Let us stand up for integrity in public service. Let us stand against unnecessary division. And most importantly, let us stand together for the future of our community.
Connie Leung
Sunset resident of this community for nearly 40 years
Categories: Commentary
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
The money is already spent. If you vote “no” you will have wasted it.
Fact check yourself better. Engardio is a notorious liar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Connie Leung’s recent defense of Supervisor Joel Engardio (“In Support of Supervisor Joel Engardio: A Call for Reason and Respect in our Civic Process”) paints a picture of responsible leadership and “forward-thinking” vision. But strip away the spin, and what you find is a troubling pattern of half-truths, failed experiments, and misrepresentation of voter sentiment.
Night Market Failures
Leung praises Engardio for supporting the Sunset Night Market. The truth is far less flattering. The event was plagued with permit issues, crowd control problems, delayed city funding, and blocked access for local businesses. Merchants reported lost sales, and community groups felt excluded. Engardio repeatedly took credit for a community-led effort, alienating organizers and leaving them unwilling to collaborate further. The recall did not “kill” the night market — Engardio’s mismanagement did.
The Upper Great Highway Misdirection
Engardio’s supporters point to a vague paragraph on his 2022 campaign website about the Great Highway Extension (GHX) south of Sloat — a stretch of crumbling, erosion-prone asphalt — to justify closing the Upper Great Highway (UGH) between Lincoln and Sloat. But these are two entirely different segments. The GHX faces legitimate geological concerns; the UGH is a vital roadway that residents rely on every day.
During the campaign, Engardio explicitly promised to keep the UGH open to cars Monday through Friday — a widely supported compromise he repeated in debates, literature, and door-to-door conversations. Residents voted for him based on that promise. The closure he implemented after winning betrays that commitment.
The website’s reference to creating a “permanent oceanside park” is deliberately vague. It doesn’t specify location, planning, funding, or community input. No town halls, charrettes, or impact studies occurred. What should have been a transparent process became a bait-and-switch: Engardio campaigned on compromise, then used a general sentence on his website to justify closing a major roadway. This isn’t leadership — it’s spin.
Exaggerated Infrastructure Achievements
Leung writes that Engardio “accelerated long-delayed infrastructure projects, such as the L-Line Rail improvements.” First, the project is misnamed — it is the L Taraval Improvement Project. Second, supervisors have limited influence over SFMTA timelines. Any progress was largely pre-planned and managed by SFMTA, not Engardio. Engardio also claims credit for $1 million in relief funding for businesses affected by L Taraval construction. In reality, this was leftover federal money from the APEC convention, distributed citywide. Being in the right place at the right time allowed him to promote it — but it was not a discretionary victory or personal initiative.
Accountability, Not Sabotage
Leung frames the recall as unfair and divisive. In reality, the recall responds to a pattern: misleading voters, ignoring constituent needs, and elevating PR over people. Over 10,000 District 4 residents have signed the petition. This is not sabotage — it is democracy in action.
The Bottom Line
Leadership requires honesty, transparency, and respect for human experience — not vague promises, selective data, or ego-driven PR stunts. Engardio has had ample opportunity to prove himself. The night markets floundered, UGH closure betrayed voter expectations, and infrastructure claims are inflated. District 4 deserves better. The recall is the path to restoring accountability, trust, and real leadership in our neighborhood.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You agree that the California Constitution expressly permits a Recall requiring but a minimum set of conditions. But then you claim that by using it for “decisions some disagree with”, ” it erodes [public trust and makes long term planning impossible]”
I’m trying to take you seriously but there’s no actual explanation or argument here. How much of a recall landslide would it take to convince you that this recall, as a democratic right, is exactly the kind of mechanism that expresses the will of the people?
Engardio should have been disagreeing with the carpetbagging developers who are funding his defense, INSTEAD OF THE 18,000 people who will be voting to recall him come September 16, 2025.
IF Engardio refused to heed the warnings of Albert Chow and Jason Leung, as well as the the majority of the 10,000 petitioners who demanded this recall, who relied on Engardio’s campaign promises to vote for him, it seems to me it is only Engardio who is incapable of long term planning. This Harry-Mok-esque apologism is doing nobody any favors here.
I agree with you that this recall is a financial distraction. Anytime, anyday, Engardio can avoid a landslide defeat and save the city this needless expense and resign. His failure to heed D4’s wishes is NOT D4’s fault.
Frank Cheung
LikeLiked by 1 person