Editor:
I want to sincerely thank Supervisor Joel Engardio for his correct and courageous decision in supporting the transformation of the Great Highway. Even in the face of opposition and political risk, he stood by what he knew was right for safety, livability and the long-term future of San Francisco.
His willingness to prioritize the greater good, despite the personal sacrifice it has cost him, is deeply admirable. Leadership often requires making difficult choices that may not be immediately popular, but history will remember Supervisor Engardio positively for standing on principle.
His efforts are appreciated, and many recognize the integrity and vision he has demonstrated. The same values that guided his leadership also make Sunset Dunes worth protecting, and I encourage readers to stand against any measure that would eliminate this vital park.
Daniel Case
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
Daniel Case calls Joel Engardio “courageous” and “principled” after he was recalled by the very people he claimed to serve. Leadership is measured by how you treat your constituents, not by foodie tours or certificates handed to favored supporters. On that score, Engardio failed spectacularly.
He never held a single town hall. He ignored warnings and criticism. And when constituents spoke up online, he blocked, silenced, and abused them. Seniors, working families, disabled residents (anyone who challenged him ) were treated like obstacles instead of people he was supposed to represent. That’s not courage. That’s narcissistic, toxic behavior.
The Great Highway closure and obsession with Sunset Dunes were not acts of principle. They were acts of arrogance that caused real suffering: longer commutes, restricted access, business losses, and community frustration. His “vision for the future” came at the expense of today’s lives.
Trying now to link his name to Sunset Dunes as if that redeems him is laughable. Sunset Dunes is a symbol of entitlement putting leisure, selfies, and privilege above the safety, access, and well-being of neighbors. Voters didn’t fall for it, and neither should the public. Engardio’s legacy is not courage or principle it’s hubris, harm, and abuse.
LikeLike
Engardio was not a courageous person. He was a horrible supervisor who loss support of over 60% of the district he represented and got recalled – fair and square.
LikeLike
And his biggest supporters were dark money Billionaires, not locals.
The recall effort was entirely locals. Sour grapes must be very sour.
LikeLike
Wow Daniel – that was really some fiction. We talk about the future and things that should matter for San Francisco. 20,000 cars used the Great Highway everyday on weekdays while 3500 people go to the park – people used that highway to drop their kids off at school, go to work, go shopping (local small ethnic mom and pop stores and not just beach side coffee shops and restaurants), and for me visit elderly parents but Joel and the pro-park people just don’t want to care about the numbers – a small rich vocal minority dictated policy by getting the residents not impacted by street or highway closures to build another playground. But I believe the east side residents could be swayed into reexamining this issue if they knew Joel took big tech money with unclean hands to build a playground for the rich and how negatively impactful it has been to both Richmond and Sunset residents because the east side has those same issues and if we closed Van Ness street to traffic – they would understand empathetically how we feel for example and that is how this issue needed to be framed.
So whoever is supervisor for D4 – hopefully is somebody that isn’t stubborn but will work across the aisle and solve his districts problems and more importantly this cities problems. Joel never had that attribute as he constantly blamed merchants negative impacted by night markets as “whiners and there is always somebody that complains”. A meat market, a produce market, and herbal shop – those merchants (mostly Asian stores) should complain as the normal customers would be unable shop, park, and visit their establishment. Instead of calling them whiners, he should have outreach and listen to their complaints, look for a solution, and not make it personal but focus on addressing his constituents. This is his attitude about the park, where 62% voted to recall him but we’re all haters and right wing people against LGBTQ or development. This is just childish name calling and not reflective of the people that recalled him.
Let’s focus on issues that I care about – which is not parks but how do we make housing affordable, help the homeless, and improve public safety. 17% of SF is already a park in a city already unaffordable – there is a park almost 10 minutes away from almost 100% of the city – let’s focus on helping the homeless and make this city the best of what it was when I was growing up and before people like Joel came here with no roots and with their pockets for big tech money.
For you all – keep an eye on Joel – He will be running for Scott Wiener’s state senator position when Scott runs for Congress. That is why it’s so easy for him to disregard his neighbors and west side residents – he’s fixed on his ambition and he needs those tech dollars for the state senator role. It’s all quid pro quo.
LikeLike
D1 and D4 residents should be the only ones allowed to vote to open the great highway. Engardio pitted the city against the D1/D4 residents on the issue.
LikeLike
Open the Great Highway believed the whole city should vote on their ballot measure in 2022. The whole city got to vote on the Embarcadero Freeway and the Central Freeway. And D1 residents were happy to vote against tearing down the Central Freeway even though it was outside of their neighborhood.
I also don’t understand why someone who lives in D1 at Turk and Masonic should have a say in the future of the city’s coast, but someone who lives in D7 at Lakewood Apartments shouldn’t get to vote on the Great Highway.
In any case, there’s no legal mechanism for only D1 and D4 to vote on something, nor do only those two districts own the ocean. The alternative would have been for the Board of Supervisors to decide, where D1 and D4 would have been outnumbered. With a vote, everyone got an equal chance to convince the voters that their side was right . The Prop K people apparently ran a convincing campaign while it felt like the no on K people blew most of their money on Matt Boschetto ads and spent most of their time having car rallies.
LikeLike
Mark if you don’t live in the district why do you get a “say”? It’s not being made on any immediate need, it’s in contravention of 2 CA laws, it’s done furtively with Billionaire dark PAC money, it lies at every stage, it omits the secret meetings, it disregards the entire will of the affected districts, it inflates the costs of the previous arrangement and ignores the hidden costs that Prop K brought to City Coffers, whether they’ve acknowledged that or not – all of this to appease a local minority bought by Billionaire dark money? And this is your plan for every district that you don’t live in, that you get to just give someone’s entire neighborhood away for YOUR non-local carpetbagger Billionaire-bought concerns?
Please think harder.
LikeLike
NOPE! Not in this lifetime… Just because you said it, doesn’t make it so! Truth like art is in the Eye of the Beholder, YOU believe what you choose, and We will believe what we know for sure!
LikeLike
We recalled him for reasons that are not rehashable.
LikeLike