Editor:
The effort to recall Supervisor Joel Engardio is misguided and costly.
This recall centers on a single issue: the Upper Great Highway. Firstly, recalling Engardio will not reopen the Upper Great Highway to cars. The decision to close the Upper Great Highway and create a public oceanside park was made by voters on Proposition K and no recall will reverse it.
Recall supporters say they feel betrayed, yet Engardio’s role was to ensure that the question of the Upper Great Highway went to the ballot. Without his action, the Board of Supervisors would have decided the matter on their own, closing the highway without citywide input when the compromise expired in 2025. Instead, Engardio put it on the ballot and voters had a direct say. That’s not betrayal, that’s democracy.
I’d also like to point out that the Upper Great Highway does not belong to the west side. Like the Embarcadero, the Palace of Fine Arts, the Marina Green, Chinatown, or any other San Francisco gem, it is a shared public space that is part of San Francisco as a whole. It is not the possession of one neighborhood.
Finally, the recall itself is expensive. Running a special election costs the city hundreds of thousands of dollars; resources that could otherwise support community programs, schools or public safety. With a regular election already scheduled for next year, this special recall feels like an unnecessary use of public funds.
Personally, I want a supervisor who is bold enough to act, and to trust voters with consequential decisions. Using recalls not for serious misconduct but for policy disagreements only discourages representatives from taking risks or putting hard questions to the public.
Engardio respected the democratic process by putting the issue before voters. We should do the same by respecting the outcome of the election and focusing our energy on the many other challenges facing San Francisco. I urge voters to vote No on A.
Maria Kjellstrand, Sunset Resident
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
Great, so by this line of reasoning I should be able to vote on closing Marina Blvd and diverting all that traffic through the Marina residential areas and to the already busy Lombard Street so I can play on Marina Blvd EVEN THOUGH there is a recreational space adjacent to it (the Marina Green and Ft. Mason) but I have to have that particular traffic artery even if the people in the Marina bear the cost. I also want to close Stanyan to make it into a park, and Portola…Market…etc ad nauseum. There was ALREADY a shared public space there – a national recreational area called Ocean Beach which was and still is more highly used than the current substandard “park” with shoddy “enhancements”. Yesterday there was an ocean rescue needed and the first responder vehicles were delayed getting there because “park” users failed to yield to the vehicles.
LikeLiked by 6 people
I think you’re asking this as a sort of “gotcha” question, but the answer is, well…yes! If it were on the ballot, you could vote on it! However, getting there is not easy: you would need to draft a measure, file it with the Dept. of Elections, publish a notice of intent, gather thousands of valid signatures, and pass verification. The closures you’re suggesting would almost certainly never make it that far.
And by the way, this is also the process you would use to try and reopen the highway. (But…it’s already been voted on twice. At some point, re-running the same vote over and over starts to feel a lot less democratic.)
Anyway, the point still stands: yes, this is the democratic process. You can dislike the outcome, but you can’t claim it wasn’t fair.
LikeLike
That’s not how Prop K got on the ballot. It got on the ballot because five supervisors worked quietly to put it on the ballot without advance notice to the public. We now know that Engardio was working with Lucas Lux and Todd Davis (a lobbyist with Abundant SF) to put it on the ballot but Engardio erased that meeting (which occurred a few weeks before putting it on the ballot). The Sunshine Taskforce just voted 8-0 that that alteration of an official public calendar was a valid ethics complaint and forwarded it on to the full Ethics Committee for investigation. Now the recall effort WAS a public effort taking hundreds and hundreds of hours of mostly volunteer effort to collect signatures, with funding 1/10th of what Engardio got from tech bros that don’t live in D4.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Engardio decided to put one road on his measure when he could have had added other streets and roads for closure but didn’t. Nor did Engardio gather enough residents to petition this measure on the ballot. He listened to Lucas Lux and the bike coaltion and now Lux has his version of a private park in his backyard. You are just a shill who is spouting Engardio’s talking points that don’t make sense.
LikeLike
I thought you like to claim that the park is always empty. Now you’re claiming it was so crowded with people on a Tuesday that they delayed first responders?
It’s certainly fine to disagree on this issue, but at some point it just sounds like you’re throwing random arguments at the wall to see what sticks.
LikeLike
I tried to find where this woman lives in the Sunset, but it turns out she lives in Portland!
She ignores the anti-environmental aspects of what is effectively a privatization of a public highway. Cars spew more gas as they are forced to detour. Many people drive and park to go to this silly fake “park”, a stretch of road which is now littered with public “art” that the public had no hand in choosing!
The intention here is to raise property values (Engardio is a YIMBY) as well as create even more private commercial spaces (see JFK!) on what was once a road.
Engardio SNUCK this on the ballot in a dishonorable and sleazy fashion. The amazing thing is that people supported his candidacy. They do not appear to have evaluated his views (high rises everywhere!) or his history as an advocate for the real estate “industry.”
There is zero evidence that the Supervisors would have voted to close this valuable artery in 2026.
The compromise itself was garbage: The road is often empty when it was car free, and the weather is horrific much of the time. This is all about gentrification.
Was she paid by the campaign to write this illogical letter? It just regurgitates talking points.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Wow, this is a bit creepy, Harry. No, I don’t live in Portland, I live in the sunset. And no, I have not been paid by anyone, much less any campaign (but if anyone feels like paying me PLEASE feel free lol)
LikeLike
A public park owned and operated by the city is not privatization, and I guess you weren’t around for the multiple Arts Commission hearings where the temporary art was subject to the same public process, public comment, etc as all artwork throughout the city.
Anyway, which is it? Does nobody come because it’s a “silly fake park” that is “often empty” and the weather is “horrific?” Or do so “many people” drive to come to the new park? It can’t be both.
LikeLiked by 2 people
More nonsense. Westside Traitor and well documented liar Joel Engardio has got to go!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I believe there are inaccuracies in this letter that I would like to address:
A. The author states that the BOS would have decided the matter on their own and closed the highway. Hmmm. Please direct your attention to the actual pilot program wording. According to the SFMTA Pilot Project informational website: “The pilot allows the Recreation and Park Department and the SFMTA to collect more robust data on the Upper Great Highway’s use as both a roadway and a promenade, as well as gather additional public feedback.” I do not think Engardio gathered feedback from the bulk of his constituents.
B. Engardio’s actions were not bold, as the author states, but cowardly. Engardio’s actions were more likely that of a classic ‘bait and switch’. From what numerous former supporters say, he rallied their support by his stance against the closure and then he did not bother to let them know he had ‘changed his mind’, or had his mind changed for him; either way, he left his constituents in the dark with his last minute ballot maneuvering that left no time for discussion in keeping with what was expected from the pilot program parameters mentioned above. Cowardly (and fishy) to me.
C. The author states that Engardio’s last-minute ballot measure shows democracy in action. Not so. I expect a local supervisor to uphold my right to be heard before going into a major change city-wide. Engardio showed outright contempt and disrespect for his constituents at the basic level of democracy: local input. I feel disenfranchised, deprived of the right to be heard.
D. Engardio’s actions were negligent. He failed to take proper care of getting input from his constituents before a life-altering decision and disruption to a pilot program was put before a larger population less affected by the outcome, (and done with misinformation). Bad decision. Lack of leadership.
I urge all voters to Vote YES on A to recall Engardio. We can, in fact, achieve better representation and leadership for our Sunset area and our city. Please Vote YES on A!
LikeLiked by 3 people
Maria frames the recall as “misguided,” arguing that Engardio was simply respecting democracy by putting the Upper Great Highway (UGH) closure to a citywide vote via Proposition K. Let’s unpack that.
The vote outcome was largely driven by residents on the eastern side of San Francisco, who had minimal exposure to the traffic chaos and safety hazards the closure caused on the west side. Sunset District residents—who live with the consequences every day—had their concerns minimized. Democracy is not just casting a citywide vote; it’s about representing the people directly affected.
Proposition K bypassed environmental review and violated portions of the California Vehicle Code. The Planning Department, SFMTA, and Rec & Park sought CEQA exemptions that were legally questionable. The Coastal Commission had to step in to scrutinize the process. This was policy by procedural sleight-of-hand, not responsible governance.
Prop K sets a worrying precedent: putting complex urban planning decisions into the hands of ordinary citizens. Last I checked, urban planning is not part of the standard American curriculum. Asking voters citywide to make technical, localized policy decisions—like whether to close a two-mile thoroughfare—is risky. Imagine if D4 residents could draft a ballot measure to close Treasure Island and make it accessible only by boat. Extreme? Prop K was just as extreme. Major urban policy decisions should be informed, professional, and locally accountable, not decided by a general vote of uninformed residents.
The closure worsened traffic, created emergency access risks, and increased stress for families. Combined with Engardio’s broader housing agenda, his policies displace working families and newcomers, handing leverage to developers. Prop K isn’t just a park—it’s part of a pattern of top-down decisions that disrupt communities under the guise of democracy.
Engardio’s record includes doxxing recall supporters, scrubbing politically sensitive calendar entries, censoring constituents, and pushing through citywide measures that hurt his own district. This is not bold; it’s abuse of power, disregard for residents, and mismanagement.
This recall isn’t a political stunt—it’s a corrective measure to restore accountability, protect neighborhoods, and prevent dangerous precedents in urban governance.
Vote YES on A. Recall Engardio.
LikeLiked by 4 people
A. There was an election. Everybody spent months debating the issue, which is a vastly more inclusive public feedback process than anything else. Asking the voters what to do is how we get public feedback in our democracy. The No on K people had months to convince the voters to see the issue their way. Instead, they failed, just as they did with 2022’s Prop I, and spent too much of their money on ads promoting Matt Boschetto instead of volunteers putting in the hours talking to voters.
B. His own campaign website from years ago before he was elected said “create a permanent oceanside park.” Anyone who was furious at the prospect of a permanent oceanside park might have seen the words “permanent oceanside park” as a warning sign on a candidate’s website.
C. You had every opportunity to be heard during the five years of public hearings, meetings, surveys, appeals, lawsuits, the 2022 ballot measure, etc. How many years worth of being heard on the same issue should we have before we make an actual decision? And you during Prop K, you were heard just as much as every other voter. That’s our democratic system. The outcome not turning out the way you wanted is not the same as being heard.
D. This is your opinion, which you’re perfectly entitled to, but it’s not an inaccuracy in the letter as you claim.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m curious, did you use AI to write this? Apologies if not…it just reads that way. Lots to address here but I want to clear up a few things:
Please re-read my point that the western side of San Francisco does not own the beach, the Great Highway, or the avenues. West and East San Francisco are not two different cities. San Francisco is one city. The whole city votes in citywide elections.
A public park is not displacing families; the city- and state-wide housing shortage and resultant skyrocketing housing costs are. And ironically, I think you’ll find that many of the same people who opposed Prop K also oppose commonsense affordable housing development, zoning changes, or other measures to alleviate this issue.
Also please read my response to another comment on this strange, slippery slope, fear-mongering argument about the public voting on “complex urban planning decisions.” First of all, we vote on complex issues all the time–taxes, land use, schools, bonds, housing, etc. And Prop K was not a random closure immediately put to public vote out of the blue–the measure was put on the ballot after a years long pilot project jointly run by SFMTA and Recs and Parks who collected data and public input throughout that process…there are the experts you’re looking for. It’s frankly bizarre to think that it’s easy or simple for a D4 resident to “draft a ballot measure to close Treasure Island.” This is so clearly an extreme hypothetical that doesn’t hold water, my friend.
LikeLike
Maria, I’m going to break this down carefully because your bad faith response completely sidesteps the points I actually made:
Citywide vote ≠ local consent
Prop K let all San Franciscans vote on a policy that directly impacts only the Sunset/Westside. That’s not a hypothetical—it’s exactly why I warned about the dangerous precedent. You ignored the Treasure Island analogy on purpose: citywide voters deciding on technical, localized urban planning is risky, and Prop K proves it.
Park vs. neighborhood impact
You claim a “park is not displacing families,” but closing the Upper Great Highway worsens traffic, emergency access, commute times, and neighborhood livability. Thousands of daily commuters—working families, seniors, disabled residents—are directly harmed. Housing shortages exist, yes, but Prop K made local conditions worse, not better.
Expert input doesn’t excuse process violations
48hills and The Voice SF have documented how the city bypassed proper CEQA review and ignored the Western Shoreline Plan, while minimizing Sunset residents’ voices. This wasn’t a carefully vetted pilot—it was a politically engineered citywide vote to override the affected community.
Extreme precedent matters
You keep calling my Treasure Island example “extreme.” That’s the point. Prop K is equally extreme, handing complex urban planning decisions to voters with no training, no local accountability, and serious downstream consequences. Pretending that precedent doesn’t matter is just rhetorical gymnastics.
Bottom line: ignoring localized harm, bending rules to justify citywide votes, and spinning “experts” to hide process flaws doesn’t make Prop K reasonable. It sets a precedent that threatens future planning decisions and undermines professional, accountable governance.
LikeLike
So there was a study done before the pandemic which counted the number of cars that used the Great Highway daily – which numbered 10,000-20,000 cars per day during the weekdays. There was a count done recently on the new park which counted on average 3500 people per day using the park on weekdays and 4500 on weekends. In what part of the world do we close a essential roadway used by 10-20k people so a smaller minority (3500) can take it over? Another study found that we’ve actually done more sand removal since the Great Highway since it was turned to a park (one of Joel’s arguments).
The compromise worked – where those 10-20k people could continue to use it for work and drop their kids off while 4500 could still use it during the weekends. I was a big Joel supporter but his interest should be on the majority with townhall and discussions to talk about this impact on the neighborhood and community.
He wants to turn SF into Paris – why doesn’t he just move there instead of trying to displace and make it difficult to the existing residences.
LikeLiked by 3 people
She is just another Engardio shill. If Engardio wanted to make it democratic, he should have included Embarcadero, Market, Castro, 41st ave, Lake street in prop K. Sadly Engardio and this editorial is misguided. No one wanted the Great highway closed except Lucas Lux and the bike coalition. Vote yes on A.
LikeLiked by 3 people
A majority of San Francisco voters wanted this. Please do not mistake your opinion for the only opinion.
LikeLike
Prop K wasn’t democracy, it was malpractice. Engardio bypassed Sunset voices and shoved through a half-baked closure. Sure, it squeaked by citywide — but it doomed his career. Political suicide, plain and simple.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Democratic? Your lack of knowledge on the issue is silly. Embarcadero way, Market St, Cabrillo, Castro, lake street, 41st ave, and etc were also slated to be closed by the supervisors but none of those roads were included in prop K. That would be democratic to let everyone vote for the road closures on the one ballot.
Sadly Engardio is a disaster and should be recalled.
Ironically, there are more accidents with bikes at sunset dunes than when the great highway was open with cars.
Vote Yes on A.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What are you even talking about? When did the Board of Supervisors even consider closing Castro to cars?
LikeLike
I think that recalls are a lot less expensive and pernicious than corruption, and so I have no issues using tax money to ensure that public servants behave ethically, alongside the uses that you noted such as support for community programs, schools or public safety As long as we are making fiscal decisions together, please deploy your logic by sharing your views about whether or not public funds should be spent on Sunshine Ordinance Task Force hearrings and referrals to the SF Ethics Commission. Bonus points if you can explain whether public servants should be excused from appearing at hearings involving allegations of their ethics violations.
Engardio is the subject of an independent and active referral to the SF Ethics Commission of a wilful violation of law, based upon evidence and a hearing where he chose to be absent. He clearly struggles with his calendar management, as constituents have complianed about a lack of meetings to discuss their priorities. So, I find it odd that you are fixated on the troubles and expenses that arise when we don’t have a supervisor who is “bold enough to act.” It seems all of this trouble for our community could have simply been avoided if Joel actually knew how to show up, for anything.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh, how trite! Another tedious opinion piece emphasizing the importance and necessity of respecting the democratic process for certain elections that suit a particular purpose, but not for others.
I would like to have a few minutes of my time back, and so I suppose I shall need to walk a bit faster to drop all my family’s ballots into the mailbox.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You say Joel magnanimously “allowed” his ignored constituents to vote on Prop K? Read the letter below, and you will see what he does when he thinks no one is watching. His goal was to manipulate voters to vote YES, despite his nattering on about fairness and transparency The silver tongued orator has conned you completely, like he did to us all to get elected. Oh, when will people learn that this guy is a fraud? There are always new marks to deceive.
https://richmondsunsetnews.com/2025/08/31/letter-to-the-editor-can-we-trust-joel-engardio/
LikeLiked by 1 person