Editor:
The election is over. I should be basking in the glory of a hard won victory; instead, I find myself angry and offended. Angry that we elected a supervisor who had so much disregard for his constituents that we had to spend a ridiculous amount of time and energy on a recall. Offended by way those of us who fought for the recall are lumped together as being of one single conservative mindset. The disrespect that we, the majority of District 4, have been shown is absolutely disgraceful.
We have been accused of being car-loving, children-hating, joyless curmudgeons who want to “preserve our neighborhoods in amber.” Those who own single-family homes are accused of being “selfish.” We are “against progress” and we are “fearful of change.” We are all “nativist” and we “hate” newcomers.
We have been accused of lying and spreading false information and misinformation. And even though this has never been validated except for a couple of unreliable, unverifiable, and undocumented anecdotes, the slander lives on.
Our former supervisor has all but said that we – the vast majority of his former constituents – are on the wrong side of history. He even made a comment implying we are obsolete, “as the demographics of the district will change in a few years, anyway”. That’s right, die boomers, so the young and the hip can take over and build tall buildings everywhere in the name of “progress,” “change” and, in the parlance of the latest virtual signaling, “needed housing.”
(There has never been one single assessment of how much housing sits empty in this City in order for the City to determine how much housing is actually “needed.”) Who cares about the character of the stuffy old Sunset? All that matters are parks, closed streets, and “progress.”
So, can someone please tell me what is so terribly wrong with wanting to “preserve the character of our neighborhoods?” Why does that make us against progress? Are we wrong to fear displacement? (We’ve all seen what has happened in the Mission. The only place you will find a Latino on Valencia Street anymore is in a hip restaurant’s kitchen.)
It is obvious from the election results that we, the vast majority of residents, love the Sunset just as it is. Why are we being talked down to, insulted and disgraced for that? Why is it perfectly acceptable for a tiny group of people, consisting mostly of the newly arrived and a despised state senator, to tell us how to live and what is best for us? Can one get anymore condescending and insulting than that?
Is progress to be found only in towering buildings and closed streets? Or can we find progress in less oppressive ways that do, indeed, preserve the character of our neighborhoods? I don’t know, but I do know we deserve a voice in these decisions. The residents of Sunset wanted nothing more than to be respected and to be heard. It’s a damn shame it took a recall election for that to even begin to happen.
Alyse Ceirante, District 4 resident.
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
Thank you, Alyse, well said!!
LikeLike
And Alyse Ceirante’s employment is as a rent board counselor. We need to catch up with her id say. Erica
Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail on Android
LikeLike
100% agree. We have district elections in SF so that neighborhood interests will have someone to fight for them at City Hall. It’s similar to checks and balances, and designed to try to fend off “tyranny of the majority” (to quote one of the Federalist Papers authors, Madison I think). Joel and Myrna “I’ve Never Met A Driver I Didn’t Loathe” Melgar have totally failed in this regard, fighting for Wiener and the Bike Coalition, not their constituents. Instead of saying “you know, I didn’t do a good job representing the people who elected me,” Joel had the audacity in defeat to double down on selling out his constituents. Good riddance.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree that those who spoke up and shined a light on the inconsistencies, misinformation and provable lies coming from Engardio and some of his supporters were targeted by them and unfairly referred to as stated above by the author. Hopefully, the success of the recall and removal of this unethical Supervisor, who did everything possible to pit neighbor against neighbor, will bring our community together so we can make the needed changes and live in peace. Thank you for writing this.
LikeLike
I voted “no” on closing the Great Highway, and I was not pleased that the measure passed. However, I think the recall was childish, and it accomplished nothing (Great Highway is still closed) except to make those who recalled Engardio feel better. In addition, the recall was a waste of the taxpayers’ money.
Since you brought it up, more housing is desperately needed in this City. It is outrageous that a 1-bedroom apartment (in a decent neighborhood) is > $3,000 a month. Equally outrageous that a basic 3-bd house is a couple million dollars. The demand for housing exceeds the supply; the obvious solution is to build more units. Econ 101. I love the old Victorians and Edwardians in the City as much as anyone else, and I understand the argument about not changing the character of neighborhoods, but something has to give.
LikeLike
“However, I think the recall was childish” – And we think lying to constituents is serious, a major offense, and trust is important for our representatives.
I think shilling for a brazen liar is pretty mentally childish, but you do you.
The money spent on converting the Highway to a concrete jungle by the sea, continuing to sweep for sand as ever they did (obvious lie on their part!) entirely DWARFS the tiny amount that the recall election actually cost, from soup to nuts. It’s not even comparable, so go on back to econ101 with that pseudo-gripe…
Further, the recall WAS necessary! Joel lied. Joel continues to lie! He doubled down on decidedly NOT representing over 65% of his constituency on a major issue, and not just one issue either – he personally cancelled rent control protections for ADU units, “in laws” of which the Sunset has quite a few. He leans into tearing out existing homes already paid for and putting up unaffordable condo towers that NOBODY in the neighborhood wants! The sheer audacity of the liar pretending to be looking out for the little guy, for our families, it’s just toxic levels of sarcasm. He literally endangered our local streets – straight up. His record really was nothing good at all, and the few fake feathers he chose for his hat didn’t sit upright on their own. He was a charade of a man, and we fired him. Don’t like it? Then you don’t like Democracy and think it’s childish, whatever.
“Since you brought it up, more housing is desperately needed in this City.”
-The common uneducated YIMBY refrain, not even caring that it’s going up at market rates in the place of existing rent-controlled, MUCH lower income housing that IS BUILT and PEOPLE ARE LIVING IN, NOW. There are THOUSANDS of vacant units all over the City and NOTHING being done about it, despite lip service from YIMBY “moderates” about vacancy taxes – write offs, for landlords and developers. No, you need to build where there is nothing. You have acres of open lots all over the city waiting for your yuppie condo towers, you don’t need to displace tens of thousands of longtime Sunset residents.
Don’t like the Sunset as it is? What is it, jealousy or greed? Go fish elsewhere. Wiener’s “builder’s remedy” threat was always intended by him to come to pass – because he’s always been a sellout to big developer private equity interests. Always. Have YOU ever seen the rents or new housing prices come DOWN as a result? No. So stop barking because you have no bite. YIMBY tools aren’t that sharp apparently.
LikeLike
My point is that the measure to close the Great Highway was put on the ballot and, even though I am not happy that it passed (and you are not happy that it passed), it did. So every time that an election does not turn out the way we would have liked, we do a recall? Sounds like an endless cycle of recalls, and a very bad precedent to set. And a colossal waste of money.
As far as your claim that voters were mislead, I do not buy that. I think it was obvious that the purpose of closing the Great Highway was to send a message to drivers. The idea that the Great Highway could ever be a “park” was laughable. I do not think the measure passed because of misinformation; I think it passed because there are more anti-car voters in this City than we realized. They knew what they were voting for, they were not mislead.
Regarding housing, what is your solution? You think we should force property owners to rent out their property even when they do not want to?
LikeLike
(Scott I can’t reply to your reply, so I will append this to mine.)
You can keep repeating the talking point that lying is not enough of a reason to recall someone, but the Sunset disagrees with you entirely.
No, rents are not going down anywhere as a result of YIMBY BS.
No, we do not trust Engardio to look after any aspect of our district.
We fired him for good and very defensible reasons – he’s a liar and sellout who puts the concerns of Sunset residents second to his agenda.
Period. You can say what you want but Prop K was put out with a ton of misinformation on every single aspect, from traffic to environmental concerns to costs to effects on neighborhood safety. It was entirely a lie from start to finish, and the CEQA-skipping rationale was a load from the same ox cart.
I’m sorry you feel the need to defend it as if it were a legit process, but it wasn’t. Fact – Engardio lied, he tried to scrub meetings from his official record and lied about that too, and the Sunset has had enough of his crap. We’re done here. I hope you find something productive to think about instead of trying to ex-post-facto defend a shameless baldface liar who has no respect for you, or anyone.
LikeLike
I really don’t think you’re going to make a lot of friends telling people like Scott that they’re shills, mentally childish, jealous and/or greedy, and tools. This is someone who agreed with you on the Great Highway, and yet all you’ve got for him is six paragraphs of insults?
People have different opinions on the Great Highway and on housing. That’s ok. That’s democracy and it makes us stronger. I can live with a closed Great Highway even though that wasn’t my choice, because that’s what the people voted for. What I can’t live with is this small but extremely loud group of my neighbors who have done nothing for the past few years but shout “OPEN THE GREAT HIGHWAY,” “GET OUT OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD,” “LIAR,” “RECALL,” and spread hate and insults throughout our neighborhood.
If I have to choose between a closed road in a neighborhood where people treat each other with respect and an open road in a neighborhood where people like MP hurl insults at their neighbors and erstwhile allies, I’m siding with the former.
LikeLike
Vivian with all due respect, I make friends entirely easily – I simply have requirements that include them being 1, honest, and 2, not shills for Billionaire YIMBY developer interests. Those are the big 2 for me. I’m done with shills after Engardio’s PR gaslighting campaign. Done. Apologies if that offends.
When my “fellow Americans” pretend not to understand the influence that unlimited Dark Money PACs and the Billionaires that run them have over our unregulated piecemeal election “system” I tend to lose interest in a long term relationship with them personally speaking, because rather than explain how the sun rises in the East and have them fecklessly try to pick the obvious apart, I have to prioritize putting my efforts in explaining equity vs injustice to those who are actually interested in either concept. YIMBY tools simply value talking points and fake debates over the facts that you or I can plainly see – that putting up market rate units does nothing for the poor, that taking people’s property that they worked their entire life to afford and razing it for yuppie condo towers isn’t equitable nor necessary, and that Scott Wiener’s builder’s remedy and other machinations actually DO NOT lower rents or housing prices for anyone, anywhere, historically. The YIMBY cult is predicated on lies.
When they choose to parrot those talking points I lose interest in trying to win those particular hearts and minds, because they’ve already sold their souls IMO. They think developers and Billionaire money has a right to run over residents.
I will never agree to that and I will never be polite about it. “Shills” is accurate.
Regards!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s face it: America’s perception of SF sucks right now. I’m not convinced that people across the country are lining up to give their left kidney to move here. In fact, I’ve seen the opposite — so many families I know have long ago left for the suburbs, smaller towns, or even other states where schools are better and the cost of living isn’t crushing. Downtown SF is half-dead, companies like Twitter have skipped off to Texas, remote work is still the norm, and SFUSD enrollment is tanking. That’s not a population boom — that’s an exodus.
So let’s call it what it is: we don’t have a “housing crisis,” we have an affordability crisis. Building more and more luxury towers isn’t going to magically fix that. If you want proof, just look north to Vancouver. That city has been “YIMBY’d” since the 1980s — upzoning, towers everywhere, tripled housing stock — and it’s still one of the most unaffordable cities in North America. Families were priced out long ago, and now you’re left with pricey plastic towers that look nice on a brochure but are out of reach for the people who actually keep a city alive. Don’t just take my word for it
https://macleans.ca/economy/why-canadas-housing-crisis-is-not-just-a-supply-and-demand-problem/
and
https://48hills.org/2024/09/vancouver-study-shows-how-the-yimby-narrative-has-failed-in-real-time/
both break down how Vancouver proves the YIMBY “just build more” narrative has failed in real time. SF is on the same path if we keep pushing towers over reducing the barrier to entry to living in SF.
And please, don’t get me started on Mayor Daniel Lurie’s so-called “Family Zoning Plan.” Anyone who has ever raised kids in this city knows families don’t want to live in high-rise apartments where their car is stashed in some sketchy garage five to ten minutes from their front door. Imagine schlepping back from Costco with bulky items, dragging them through underground garages, lobbies, hallways, and elevators — and that’s if you’re lucky enough to get a parking spot at all. Working parents don’t want to live like that. Families, when they can help it, prefer single-family homes or townhomes with a direct connection to their garage. Lurie’s plan isn’t “family-friendly” — it’s cosplay Vancouver, and we all know how that turned out.
And while we’re on the subject: how exactly are all these new residents supposed to get around SF with all the anti-car policies being shoved down our throats? Bike? Ha! Despite all the spin from the SF Bike Coalition, SF is not — and never will be — a truly bike-friendly city. And our public transit? Sub-par at best. City leaders act like if we just close a few more roads and stack more towers, everything will magically work itself out. The reality is we’re creating a city that only works for the able-bodied, childless tech crowd — and everyone else, from seniors to working families, gets pushed out.
That’s not progress. That’s how you kill a city.
LikeLike
Economics is not partisan. If I have the only Mickey Mantle baseball card in existence, then I can charge as much as I want for it. If there are thousands of Mickey Mantle cards on the market, then my card is worth significantly less.
If you build thousands of new units across the city, rents will go down because there is less competition for each unit. Not great if you are a landlord, but very good for tenants.
I would rather live in a single-family home, too, but where are we going to build single-family homes in San Francisco? It is not practical.
Everything in life is a compromise.
As far as people not wanting to live in San Francisco, from what I have seen, that is not true. In my apartment building, vacant units are rented out very quickly, usually within a few weeks.
LikeLike
Dear Scott and Vivian,
Funny how the folks clutching pearls about “tone” never have a problem with politicians lying through their teeth, scrubbing records, or selling out their own district — but heaven forbid neighbors use strong words to call it out. Recalls aren’t tantrums, they’re democracy 101, built into the Charter to deal with exactly this kind of betrayal. And no, the Great Highway ballot wasn’t some clear-cut forever-closure — residents were deliberately misled, which is why the recall exists. Pretending “everyone knew” is gaslighting. Same with housing: nobody is suggesting dragging landlords out of bed at gunpoint and making them rent — the real problem is thousands of vacant units rotting while insiders whine about “shortages.” A vacancy tax or enforcement is common sense, but YIMBYs would rather build luxury towers on top of families who already live here. If people are angry, it’s because their kids are stranded in traffic, their elders are cut off from doctors, and their neighborhoods are being gutted for profit. You don’t get to break things, tell people to smile about it, then scold them for being upset. That’s not “civility,” that’s condescension.
LikeLike
Dear Scott,
“Economics is not partisan. If I have the only Mickey Mantle baseball card in existence, then I can charge as much as I want for it. If there are thousands of Mickey Mantle cards on the market, then my card is worth significantly less.”
This analogy is fundamentally flawed. Housing isn’t a collectible card; it’s a necessity, and the “market” is distorted by massive land speculation and global capital. Did you even read the articles I linked about Vancouver? They explain why building more units hasn’t lowered prices — because the problem isn’t supply, it’s the cost of land itself. Econ 101 doesn’t cover that.
“If you build thousands of new units across the city, rents will go down because there is less competition for each unit.”
Vancouver has added far more housing than SF has, yet it is now the most expensive city in North America. Adding units alone does not reduce costs when global investors and land speculators capture nearly all the financial benefits. Again, the links I shared explain this in detail.
“I would rather live in a single-family home, too, but where are we going to build single-family homes in San Francisco? It is not practical.”
Correct, there’s no room left to build without displacing current homeowners. The solution isn’t cramming towers into every lot; it’s reducing barriers to entry for living in SF in ways that don’t uproot long-time residents.
“Everything in life is a compromise.”
Compromises are one thing; destroying existing neighborhoods and displacing tens of thousands of residents for luxury market-rate towers is another. That’s not compromise — that’s prioritizing the profits of developers and absentee investors over real families.
“As far as people not wanting to live in San Francisco, from what I have seen, that is not true. In my apartment building, vacant units are rented out very quickly, usually within a few weeks.”
That’s anecdotal at best. And since you are seeing renters come in and out I assume that these are just short term leases not people putting roots down like me who have lived in my home for almost 20 years. Look at the Westerly on 2800 Sloat Blvd — a Scott Wiener-backed development built years ago — and it remains mostly empty. Downtown SF is full of vacant office buildings. Families are leaving the city, SFUSD enrollment is down, and remote work remains widespread. The supposed “surge in demand” is overstated.
Bottom line:
Your Econ 101 baseball card analogies and claims about single-family homes ignore decades of real-world evidence. Vancouver, the city I claim as a cautionary tale, has been “YIMBY’ed” for 40 years and is now one of the most expensive, soulless cities in North America. SF is on the same path if we keep pushing towers over reducing the barrier to entry for real families. Please read the links I shared before dismissing the arguments — they are essential context.
https://48hills.org/2024/09/vancouver-study-shows-how-the-yimby-narrative-has-failed-in-real-time/
https://macleans.ca/economy/why-canadas-housing-crisis-is-not-just-a-supply-and-demand-problem/
LikeLike
I keep seeing this claim that current homeowners will be “displaced” by new development. How so? The city cannot force you to sell your home. Your house is not going to be demolished and replaced with a high-rise apartment building – unless you voluntarily sell your house. So who would be forcing homeowners out of the neighborhood?
I’d support laws that prohibit investment companies and foreigners from buying property here. That would help lower costs, to some extent. What do you think about that idea?
LikeLike
This is a reply to MP’s comment, above, because the “system” will not let you reply to reply. MP, you claimed that YIMBY’s want to take people’s hard earned property and raze it. The City cannot force you to sell your home, and as far as I know, nobody is proposing that.
Can you provide a reputable source for your claim?
LikeLike
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FGentrification_of_San_Francisco
You’re telling me that removing longstanding buildings with rent control and below market rate rents and replacing them with non-rent-eviction-controlled future-market-rate speculation rents / prices is somehow “benefiting” lower incomes and the working class?
Click the link and read a while.
LikeLike
That’s just the thing – who is talking about *removing* buildings? Or demolishing buildings? That is fiction.
LikeLike
Scott you don’t understand what “rezoning” refers to apparently.
Back to basics with you. Yes, rezoning means existing buildings will be replaced by larger buildings, and you can’t do that without razing them. Basic. Stuff.
LikeLike
Please don’t try to gaslight us by claiming no one is being forced out. Displacement doesn’t always mean demolition. Engardio’s policies, including the UGH closure, have made daily life harder for working families, seniors, and anyone relying on their neighborhood infrastructure.
I’ve written about this extensively here:
https://richmondsunsetnews.com/2025/08/07/letter-to-the-editor-experience-shows-westside-traffic-is-worse/
and here:
https://richmondsunsetnews.com/2025/09/02/letter-to-the-editor-sunset-residents-prefer-single-family-homes-over-luxury-condos/
Banning investment companies or foreign buyers might help a bit, but it won’t fix the bigger problem: rents continue to rise, vacancies sit empty, and families are priced out. Real solutions need strong tenant protections, taxing vacancies and policies that put working blue collar residents first — otherwise, telling people “your house isn’t being demolished” is just cherry-picking the facts.
LikeLike
Insulting people with whom you disagree is counterproductive (and bad manners). Even if you have a good message, if you are aggressive, snarky and rude to people, you will not convince them that you are right. You are hurting your cause.
We already have the strongest tenant protection laws in the country. In fact, I would argue they are too strong and are part of the reason rents are high. I would create a means test for rent control. Anyone who makes above a certain threshold amount loses their rent control and the landlord can charge market rent for that unit. This would stop one person from renting out a unit for 30, 40, 50+ years and keeping it off the market. (And in some cases, they don’t even live in it – they’ve bought a house and use it as a pied-a-terre or sublet it for profit.)
I am not sure what specific policy or policies would put blue collar residents first. Can you explain?
LikeLike
Dear Scott,
First off, I have to ask: where exactly did I insult anyone in my comments? Please point to the words, because all I did was challenge an argument. Critiquing claims that deny displacement is not a personal insult — it’s called debate. Accusing me of being rude is just tone-policing to dodge the actual issue.
As for your claim that tenant protections are ‘too strong,’ that’s an old landlord talking point. Rent control isn’t what drives rents up — it’s speculation, vacancies being hoarded, and politicians like Engardio siding with luxury developers instead of working families.
Your ‘means test’ idea would only weaken protections further and open the door for more displacement. People who’ve lived in their units for decades aren’t the problem — they’re the reason San Francisco still has a shred of community left.
If you’re really asking what policies put blue collar residents first:
LikeLike
I find it ironic that this article is about the pro-recall side being offended by a lack of respect for their viewpoint, and then the comment thread is basically the pro-recall people accusing anyone that disagrees with their viewpoint that they are a billionaire shill.
I am a D4 resident and believe that respect begets respect. You just can’t expect people to respect you if you don’t respect them.
I’m confident that anyone reading this thread would agree that the pro-recall movement tends to be very quick to move to personal attacks versus having a genuine debate.
Looking forward to being proven wrong, but wouldn’t be surprised if someone replies to my comment with a personal attack.
LikeLike
It’s ironic you’re lecturing us about “respect” when Engardio himself has consistently been the root of the conflict. He treated his constituents poorly, labeling them as selfish, fearful, and nativist — that’s not respectful debate, that’s outright abuse. Of course his supporters now try to deny it and present themselves as morally superior, but no one’s buying it anymore.
Engardio is the source of the tension in District 4. His policies, like the Upper Great Highway closure, have made life harder for working families, seniors, and anyone relying on neighborhood infrastructure. He ignored community concerns, dismissed residents’ lived experiences, and courted development and insider interests over the needs of his constituents.
Good luck trying to spin this as a personal attack. The reality is clear: Engardio created the conflict, and pretending otherwise is just making the problems worse. Show some humility and accountability for once if you want us to let this go. I bet you can’t.
LikeLike