The November election asks San Franciscans to think about more than individual candidates or propositions. It asks what kind of City we want to live in, how we balance competing needs and whether neighborhoods have a meaningful voice in decisions that affect daily life. From my perspective on the West Side, five questions deserve particular attention.

The Great Highway: A Road, a Park and a Neighborhood Divide

The debate over the Upper Great Highway is about much more than a stretch of pavement. Supporters of its conversion to a recreational space see an opportunity for walking, bicycling and coastal access. Residents who favor restoring motor vehicle access emphasize the practical needs of necessary cross-city and cross-county travel along with concerns over the now-heavier neighborhood traffic and longer commutes.

For decades, this area has been consistently maintained by the City for shared use by everyone, as the City owns the land.  The present-day and lovely raised coastal trail which runs parallel to the highway along the entire 2-mile stretch on the east side accommodates both bicyclists and pedestrians and provides beautiful ocean views.  It is well maintained and has benches and bathroom facilities.  On the west side is a sea wall with a pleasant walkway, benches and steps down to the beach between Noriega and Santiago streets, as well.

The recent full vehicle closure sadly ended driving on the pleasurable, scenic stretch of highway that tourists internationally have enjoyed and still speak about. This too should be considered. Tourism is one of our top industries, and the Great Highway is an important part of the historic “49-Mile Drive.” Many neighbors in the Bay Area have depended on this road as a primary transportation artery and enjoy this drive. To me, these are all reasonable expectations, since that is what this highway was built for: diverting traffic from our coastal neighborhoods and easily moving drivers to their destination, while, also, enjoying the memorable and peacefully stunning coastal views. The Upper Great Highway increases overall neighborhood safety as well.

The present situation is too exclusive and meets the needs of only a few. Plus, I question whether traffic displaced from this highway onto our local residential streets can add to ongoing maintenance issues and costs, since those smaller roads were built for lighter traffic. These concerns deserve to be measured openly, rather than dismissed.

The Upper Great Highway has been a well-maintained, inclusive, unique, shared-use, main transportation artery for decades. It worked for a majority, is practical and makes common sense, so, personally, I favor a return to that. It will be for our citywide voters to decide.

Before voting on Proposition G, I hope residents will examine its actual provisions and the alternatives. The public deserves more accurate evidence about traffic, park usage, real-time costs versus future speculation and environmental effects. My concerns, also, extend to the Snowy Plover, our threatened birds (for which we are stewards) who live and nest openly on the beach.  They are overseen by Golden Gate National Recreation Area who owns the beach.

Personally, I like that Prop. G is a compromise to “share the road” and includes everyone, so I will be voting “Yes” on Prop. G.  Do your due diligence, learn as much as you can and then make your best choice.

District 4: What Does Neighborhood Representation Look Like?

The Sunset District needs a supervisor who listens, is supportive of their constituency, is politically skilled, follows through on their behalf, communicates well and understands the daily realities of local businesses, families and commuters. These qualities matter.

Recently-appointed Supervisor Alan Wong and long-time, well-known neighborhood leader, Albert Chow, and local artist/school campus coordinator Jeremy Greco are the D-4 supervisor contenders.  They offer voters an opportunity to ask pointed questions about their records, their accomplishments for this district, their dependability, their local residential and political history and their future plans for this neighborhood. What commitments have they made or plan to make? How would they work with the mayor and other supervisors when the neighborhood disagrees with City Hall? How will constituents hold them accountable?

For me, the race comes down to Wong and Chow.

Wong is S.F. Mayor Daniel Lurie’s second choice for former D-4 Supervisor Joel Engardio’s position. Wong is from the education sector and I believe is still on a steep learning curve as regards politics. Ranked-choice voting helped him win the June 2 primary for the current runoff.

Presently, in my opinion, he is uncertain of himself, as he clearly showed in his failed efforts – twice – to secure four supervisors’ signatures and smoothly move “Great Highway For Everyone” onto the Nov. 3 ballot (the small “Yes on G” grassroots group) in order to bypass the otherwise-required 10,600 valid voter signatures. The frustration felt by his constituency over this translated into a massively-motivated effort for additional signatures. This physically took four months to gather, using volunteers and resulted in just under 16,000 signatures citywide!

Should Wong win, his constituency will wisely keep a close eye on him, along with strong pressure, as needed, so they are clearly and accurately heard and represented within City Hall. Presently, I find him intermittently unpredictable as he rapidly learns the job and what alliances to make on the Board of Supervisors. It seems as if he is still very dependent on Mayor Lurie’s preferences and heavy marketing arm for guidance and decision-making.  That should improve as he grows into the job, should he win.

Wong now fully backs the shared Great Highway compromise (much of his constituency’s preference – “Yes on G.”).  His primary focus at this time seems to be gaining trust, keeping his promises and being consistent. If he can do that, he could become a very good and effective representative for D-4. Presently, this is unknown, of course.  He’s still too new to the world of politics, but seems game to learn and is now wisely listening more to his constituency.

Albert Chow, on the other hand, is a long-time, well-known, truthful, practical and highly-trusted Sunset resident with great political skills and calming, confident leadership qualities. He is accountable, respected, consistent, dependable, loved by many and uses both common sense and community-based leadership. He and his mother own the Great Wall Hardware store (established in 1983). He is also the long-time President of the People of Parkside Sunset Merchants Association.

Chow was one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the City after the Nov. 2024 election and the passing of Prop. K, which shut down the Upper Great Highway to vehicles. That suit did not win, after finally being heard on Jan. 5, with the hearing date repeatedly postponed through 2025. It did allow for appeal, however. Instead, Great Highway For Everyone (led by Richard Corriea, respected former Captain of SFPD’s Richmond Station) decided to get the shared Great Highway measure directly onto November’s ballot via either four supervisors’ signatures or 10,600 valid voter signatures. To their credit, the exhausted volunteers actually amassed just under 16,000 signatures citywide! As an aside, this manner of ballot measure submission to the Department of Elections will no longer be allowed if Lurie’s last-minute Prop. D measure passes.

Chow is strongly pro-Sunset residents and is not a “Yes Man” for the mayor (although, per my interview with Chow, he would definitely consider and potentially support many of Lurie’s goals, depending on the needs of his constituency). Chow co-founded People of Parkside Sunset, with ongoing community meetings and merchant support that brings residents together (movie nights, farmers markets, beloved community traditions and a strong voice for D-4 in City Hall.)

It is now time for this district to decide who best represents your area and your value system. I encourage residents to attend forums, examine the candidates’ own statements, read both pro and con arguments in your voter booklets and talk to others who are knowledgeable and have possibly been involved in some of the politics in your area recently.

The Congressional Race: Experience, Judgment and Accountability

San Francisco’s representative in Congress must advocate effectively for the City while working on national issues that affect us all. Leadership style, legislative priorities, collaboration, predictability, problem-solving skills, consistent maturity on a national stage and the ability to deliver results are fair subjects for close scrutiny.

For decades now, our representative for the House seat has been Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. She knows what this job entails and has been publicly supporting D-1 Supervisor Connie Chan (in the Richmond District) since before our June 2 primary.

Chan and California State Sen. Scott Wiener are our two main contenders, with different political experiences and approaches. Rather than rely on campaign portrayals, I would like voters to compare their public records and ask how each would represent San Francisco’s diverse neighborhoods, including the West Side, and especially under the ongoing scrutiny of our nation.

We should expect serious, substantive answers from everyone seeking such an important office.  Personally, I am supporting Supervisor Chan for the seat in the House of Representatives. I like her honesty and ability to find solutions for the majority. She is who recommended the Great Highway compromise (“Yes on G”) so that everyone is included, and I believe she would make our City proud.

Proposition D: How Hard Should It Be to Put an Issue Before Voters?

Citizen initiatives are one way that neighborhoods can challenge decisions made at City Hall. Signature-gathering is demanding work, and the rules governing access to the ballot can determine whether a grassroots proposal ever reaches voters.

Proposition D raises an important question about those rules. Advocates of higher thresholds may argue that they discourage poorly developed measures, simplify our voter pamphlets and reduce election costs. Critics worry that tougher requirements strongly favor well-financed individuals and organizations over small volunteer groups who, oftentimes, are bringing something critically important to our City’s voters to consider as regards their District while working with minimal funding.

Proposition D would raise the requirements to put something on the ballot to an astoundingly-unrealistic six supervisors’ signatures or 42,500 valid voter signatures. Presently, the threshold is four supervisors’ signatures or 10,600 valid voter signatures. Personally, I am voting “No” on Propositions D, E and F. Their wording and loopholes all need improvement.

My concern is that residents without deep pockets should still have a realistic path to the ballot. This effectively blocks that, other than in very rare circumstances. Voters should examine how and why this got on the ballot, the measure’s precise language and its effects on different types of future petitions before deciding.

Ranked-Choice Voting: Understand the Rules Before You Mark Your Ballot

Ranked-choice voting can be confusing, particularly when campaigns offer conflicting advice. Under the present system (which was implemented in San Francisco in 2004), a voter may rank candidates in order of preference. Ranking a second or third candidate does not take a vote away from the first choice; later rankings are considered only if an earlier choice is eliminated.

Both our State and our City use ranked-choice voting, and, personally, I’d love to see it removed.

In my very recent memory, our City is still recovering from bad political appointments encouraged by ranked-choice voting. Former D.A. Chesa Boudin, former D-4 Supervisor Engardio and members of our school board all were aided by ranked-choice voting, and the voters paid a later cost with their respective recalls – which are happening much too often.

When California Governor Gavin Newsom was being recalled in 2021, part of his strategy to retain his seat was by going to the news outlets and social media and presenting a message of: “If you want me, vote only for me,” encouraging voters to leave the other ranked-choice options blank. And he won.

The D-4 supervisor race and the race for Pelosi’s House seat are ranked-choice voting. Nothing on your ballot says you must make more than one choice. Instead, it implies you should and strongly entices you to use ranked-choice voting, but you are, ultimately, who decides.

Ranked-choice voting also helped Lurie win. It reassigns votes from those with lower numbers to the stronger candidates. Some call it a “come-from-behind” victory.

Voters may rank only one candidate if that reflects their wishes. Doing so, however, means their ballot cannot transfer to another candidate if their sole choice is eliminated. Ranking additional acceptable candidates might, therefore, give voters more influence in later counting rounds.

I believe more education is still needed to explain the ranked-choice voting process clearly and transparently. Whatever one thinks of this method of voting, the best approach is to understand as best you can how it works and then make an informed choice.

A Final Thought

I encourage neighbors to thoroughly read the official voter information, examine arguments from more than one side and take the time needed to cast a thoughtful ballot. Westside voices matter, and our choices should be informed by facts as well as our experience of living here.

Danita Kulp is a San Francisco-based real estate broker, who works in all nine Bay Area counties, with 40+ years experience and is a longtime Bay Area resident. Her views are her own.