The Great Highway Sabotage

Last month, a ballot measure that would have restored weekday vehicle access to the Upper Great Highway (UGH) fell one supervisor’s signature short of making it onto the ballot.

Before I assumed office, nearly every supervisor had already indicated a position on reopening the UGH – either for or against. To qualify the measure for the ballot, every supervisor who had previously indicated support for reopening the UGH needed to sign on.

That did not happen. And it did not happen because of politics.

I took office less than two months ago, in December, and did what any representative should do: I listened. I met with constituents across District 4, rather than assuming their views or substituting my own judgment for theirs. I spoke with neighbors on every side of this issue – people who want the highway reopened and people who value the park. I met with them and listened.

After hearing clearly from Sunset and westside residents, I publicly announced on Dec. 19, 2025, my support for restoring the UGH’s original compromise – reopening the road to weekday traffic while preserving recreational use on weekends. There was no existing proposal at the Board of Supervisors to restore that compromise, so I took it upon myself. I immediately began working with the City Attorney’s office to draft a ballot initiative that reflected what I heard from the community, while reaching out to colleagues under an extremely tight timeline. On Jan. 8, we announced that a draft proposal was ready to be shared.

From the beginning, I knew the path would be narrow. Many supervisors had already declared firm positions on the UGH. Only three had previously voted “no” on Proposition K, the measure that permanently closed the road. To place this proposal on the June ballot, I needed the signatures of all three.

I am grateful to two of those supervisors who, after listening to their constituents, chose to support this effort. Their decision reflected respect for the voices of Sunset and westside residents who have been clear; the UGH should be reopened to weekday traffic.

I also hoped the remaining supervisor would join this effort, particularly given his prior public remarks supporting reopening the UGH. His chief of staff, who is also a candidate for District 4 supervisor, attended our Jan. 8 announcement and had the opportunity to review the proposal.

Minutes after the Jan. 13 deadline to submit the measure and four signatures had passed, I finally received a text from the remaining supervisor stating that he would not support the ballot initiative. At the same time, a Mission Local article published before he texted me quoted him as saying he could not sign on because I had not sufficiently reached out.

Given that his office had received hundreds of emails urging support for reopening the UGH, that this was an issue his office publicly claimed to care about, and that an eight-page proposal was before him, their explanation rings hollow. The question was simple: Do you support reopening the UGH to weekday traffic or not?

This position was perplexing. My office and I had spoken with him prior to the Jan. 8 announcement. Afterward, I made multiple calls and left voicemails that were not returned. My staff visited his office several times with the legislation in hand. When I asked by text whether he had any questions, he replied, “No questions at all. I will let you know my decision.”

The remaining supervisor went on to publicly say he would instead support a community-led process to place the same measure on the November ballot – one that would require gathering 10,000 signatures from voters.

Because one supervisor ultimately declined to sign on – despite stating support for reopening the UGH both before and after my proposal – the effort now shifts to a signature drive. Instead of securing one additional signature to allow voters to weigh in this June, Sunset residents will now face a delay until November and must gather 10,000 valid signatures to move forward.

That is the real cost of political gamesmanship. And it is the residents of the Sunset who are paying the price.

Supervisor Alan Wong represents District 4 on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Reach his office at wongstaff@sfgov.org or 415-554-7460.