letter to the editor

Letter to the Editor: Sunset Dunes a Playground for the Privileged

By on • ( 5 Comments )

Editor:

Sunset Dunes isn’t a park. It’s a monument to privilege and denial, built on the suffering of Sunset families, disabled residents, and endangered wildlife. Prop K’s rushed, misleading vote bypassed community input, leaving the Sunset with a so-called park that is legally shaky and morally bankrupt (48hills, The Voice SF, Richmond Sunset News, Richmond Sunset News). Its defenders claim the hardship this closure caused “doesn’t exist” or is minimal: a pure exercise in gaslighting.

Thousands of Sunset residents endure daily chaos from the Upper Great Highway closure: traffic gridlock, blocked emergency routes, lost parking, and clogged intersections, yet supporters insist none of this matters. Even ADA access for disabled visitors is laughably inadequate: supposed ramps are sandy, narrow, debris-strewn paths; blue parking spaces vanish for ten blocks at a time; porta-potties are inaccessible. Imagine the effort it takes for someone with mobility challenges to leave their home, get transported to the site, only to find they cannot safely attend. Yet defenders call the situation a success. This is privilege masquerading as civic pride.

Meanwhile, the snowy plover the federally threatened bird that once nested along Ocean Beach suffers. Before the highway closure, the Great Highway acted as a protective barrier, funnelling human and dog activity onto crosswalks and pavement. Now, Sunset Dunes offers unrestricted access, inviting thousands to trample nests, sled down dunes, and host pop-up events. Off-leash dogs run rampant. Paint flakes, skateparks, and DJ booths disrupt delicate habitats. Conservation groups like the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Golden Gate Bird Alliance have repeatedly warned that unregulated human activity, not vehicle traffic, is the primary threat to these birds. Yet defenders pretend all is fine, repeating slogans and PR spin while the ecosystem collapses.

Let’s be honest: anyone defending Sunset Dunes today is defending a mismanaged, unsafe, and ecologically destructive vanity project. It pretends to be inclusive while physically excluding the disabled, it pretends to protect wildlife while actively harming it, and it pretends that community suffering is irrelevant.

Sunset Dunes isn’t a park. It’s a playground for the privileged, paid for with the suffering of neighbors, disabled residents, and endangered birds, and anyone defending it is signing off on that harm.

Wendy Liu

Categories: letter to the editor

Tagged as: , , , , , ,

5 replies »

  2. Staaaaap. We don’t need to read the same rant from Wendy Liu every. single. month. We all know what she thinks already.

    It’s also pretty unhinged to cite the Golden Gate Bird Alliance when they, in fact, endorsed Prop K and the scientists at the San Francisco Estuary Institute concluded that “closing the roadway to cars entirely has the greatest and most immediate ecological benefits.” I’m not aware of any environmental group that endorses putting cars back on the coast as a means to improve the environment.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    • First, let’s address the tone and approach of your comment. Telling someone “we don’t need to read the same rant every month” is a classic attempt to shut down a conversation without actually engaging with the substance. That’s not discussion—it’s dismissal. Calling out my research as “unhinged” is another ad hominem: it attacks me personally instead of addressing the ecological realities I’m raising. If you want to have a credible conversation about conservation, you have to engage with evidence, not try to bully or belittle the messenger.

      Now, let’s look at the actual claims you made:

      1. Golden Gate Bird Alliance – You point out that they endorsed Prop K and imply that citing them is invalid. This misrepresents the situation. My point wasn’t whether they endorsed Prop K in full; it’s that they have consistently warned about human intrusion harming snowy plovers. Using their guidance on species protection is perfectly valid, regardless of their stance on a specific policy.
      2. San Francisco Estuary Institute – You claim that closing the roadway “entirely has the greatest and most immediate ecological benefits,” as if this automatically validates blanket closure. What you omit is that their findings are general, aspirational, and do not specifically measure the impact on snowy plovers at Ocean Beach. On-the-ground evidence from multiple observers—including local residents—shows foot traffic in the dunes is now actively harming plovers, the very species used as a poster for this project.
      3. Cars vs. foot traffic – You write, “I’m not aware of any environmental group that endorses putting cars back on the coast as a means to improve the environment.” That’s a strawman. No one is advocating high-speed SUVs as a conservation strategy. The point is that the former roadway acted as a partial barrier to uncontrolled pedestrian access, which reduced nest disturbances. The real threat to snowy plovers today is human foot traffic, dogs, and recreational activity in the dunes, not cars. Conservation science shows that managed access and seasonal closures—not blanket highway shutdowns—are the proven way to protect nesting plovers (see Point Reyes, Vandenberg, and other West Coast examples).

      In short, your comment avoids the central problem: the “Sunset Dunes” approach has created an uncontrolled, high-traffic area right in the plovers’ habitat. Using selective endorsements and blanket authority to dismiss this evidence is bad faith argumentation. Real environmental stewardship requires nuance, evidence, and enforcement—not slogans and PR campaigns.

      The birds deserve better. The public deserves honesty.

      Like

      Reply

      • Ms. Liu – 100%. You are making a great deal of sense to people who are capable of understanding the nuances in play for making good public policy decisions.

        Like

Leave a comment