Call 415-706-6428 for information about advertising online and in the printed versions of the Richmond Review and the Sunset Beacon newspapers. Or email us at Editor@RichmondSunsetNews.com.
Editor:
Supervisor Joel Engardio has been an energetic, caring and communicative leader for District 4, and he deserves to continue to represent the Outer Sunset. I am sorry to learn that he is facing a recall, initiated by voters who are unhappy with the outcome of the Proposition K vote.
In fact, this recall would do nothing to slow or reverse the democratic decision of San Francisco voters to convert the Upper Great Highway (UGH) into a permanent park. The recall is intended to punish Joel Engardio, but the reality is that the residents of District 4 would lose a great representative who has made building local community and supporting local businesses the focus of his tenure on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Engardio has explained that a group of constituents first came to him with the idea of a permanent park after the closure of the UGH to car traffic during the pandemic. The closure opened up a safe space for local residents to walk, run, skate and ride in the fresh ocean air. Our neighborhood woke up to the revelation that this beautiful space that had always been reserved for cars and trucks could come alive for local residents as a place to exercise and connect and could be a new coastal retreat for the city-at-large.
Of course, making this conversion is opposed by drivers who are accustomed to moving quickly past the Outer Sunset neighborhood on their way to points south or north, and changing the car route will cost those travelers a few more minutes. There are also locals who fear that a change of this magnitude will have negative consequences, imagined or unforeseen.
But the reality is that climate change is here, and coastal erosion is here. Residents who have lived in this area for a while have seen a part of residential Pacifica fall into the ocean. We have seen a huge parking lot at Sloat Boulevard fall into the ocean. The road connecting the UGH to Highway 35 that points south is already slated to be closed to cars because of coastal erosion. What we have here is a lemons-to-lemonade situation. Car traffic must be diverted east because of that road closure no matter what, and a majority of San Franciscans saw that the inconvenience was an opportunity to create a huge new recreation space between the Outer Sunset neighborhood and Ocean Beach.
Joel Engardio listens to his constituents, and he has also been a leader in moving the Great Highway Park closer to reality. No, we don’t know what may happen when the park is established full time, and we may encounter or observe problems. But government is for identifying problems and finding solutions to those problems.
This formerly neglected stretch of road on the edge of North America, a place where we are so lucky to live, deserves the attention we are paying to it. I hope my neighbors will join me in supporting Supervisor Joel Engardio as we move into the era of a Great Highway Park.
Emily Faxon
Categories: letter to the editor
Tagged as: climate change, Closure of the UGH, coastal erosion, district 4, letter to the editor, recall engardio, Upper Great Highway
I’m so tired of reading dismissive comments about the amount of time it takes to get around the closure. It’s NEVER a few minutes, this comes from a person who doesn’t use it for daily life (the author). It can be 20-40 mins depending on traffic. It’s hardly a neglected stretch of road; it’s a main thoroughfare AND evacuation route in and out of SF. Please go sit at Chain of Lakes, or snake your way down when the GH is closed and see how long it takes. I do it multiple times per week, and I’ve timed it. Another point: Joel lied to his constituents. He clearly stated to people’s faces that he was FOR the compromise, so please don’t paint him to be this great person who is addressing climate change. He lied, plain and simple. The way he snuck the ballot measure in at the last minute speaks volumes about his character.Car traffic needs to be diverted away from the road north of Sloat but that doesn’t mean we need to close the whole road. This is a ridiculous assertion. That is akin to saying my finger needs to be amputated, let’s just remove my whole arm. Makes zero sense.As does this entire article…
LikeLike
If it’s true that sea level rise will eventually wipe out the roadway on the Great Highway, then why spend hundreds of millions of dollars to create a park that will also be under water? This is an argument that Supervisor Engardio and his supporters have been making for months. Is there some magical thinking that believes that a roadway won’t be spared, but a park will? It simply makes no sense.
LikeLike
I dont know what planet that this writer lives on. For every point she makes, the opposite is true. He has ignored his own constituents to promote a closure of the GH. He does the bidding of rich developers, tech bros, and the bike lobby, not the needs of the strong majority of his constituents. He has violated his oath to represent D4, and he must go. He has no history as a resident of S4, and it shows in his patronizing callous dismissal of the safety, health, and quality of life for D4. He can plan parties, but when faced with an existential decision, he failed his duty miserably. He must be recalled.
http://www.recallengardio.com
LikeLike
This reader is perpetuating perhaps the biggest lie about the Great Highway closure: that closing the highway helps combat climate change. The falsity of this assertion was made clear to Joel Engardio many times, starting while he was a candidate for Gordon Mar’s seat, yet he (and so many others) consciously advanced the falsity throughout the effort to close the highway. Any politician who knowingly uses a false narrative to promote an agenda–an agenda to which a strong majority of his constituents oppose–deserves to be recalled for that reason alone. He proved himself to be just another unethical politician and does not deserve to represent District 4.
Fact #1: Cars are not going away anytime soon. Fact #2: It is indisputable that the most fuel-efficient way for drivers on the west side of San Francisco to traverse the two miles between Sloat and Lincoln is on the Great Highway. With the timed stoplights, a driver who maintains a constant 30-35 mph doesn’t have to brake. Maintaining a constant moderate speed is the most fuel-efficient manner to drive a vehicle. Conversely, stopping and starting up, accelerating and decelerating, and, most significantly, driving in congested conditions is the LEAST fuel-efficient way to drive a car and generates the greatest volume of carbon emissions.
When the highway is closed, drivers are prevented from traversing the two-mile stretch in the most fuel-efficient fashion, and instead are forced through residential streets, with four-way intersections every block. A safe driver must completely stop at each intersection having a stop sign and start up again, and at least brake on the approach to the other intersections and then accelerate once it’s determined clear. Additionally, as virtually all westside residents have experienced, when the highway is closed, new points of traffic congestion are created throughout the Outer Sunset. Finally, forcing drivers to detour out of their way and not use the most direct route for getting across the westernmost 2-mile stretch of the City necessarily increases the number of vehicle miles traveled (Sunset Boulevard is .8 miles east, and 19th Avenue is 1.8 miles east). It is tautological: more vehicle miles traveled causes the release of more carbon emissions.
So Joel and others, support the highway closure if you must, but stop being disingenuous about the justification. Just admit it that you hate drivers, are a rich techie who’s speculated on westside real estate and are banking that the closure plan will increase your property value, or whatever. But to say that closing the highway helps combat climate change is foolish.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry Emily,
While it is true that the Great Highway south of Sloat is threatened by erosion and most of the public access parking has been lost to sea, the closure of that stretch of the highway may not be necessary any more. Why? SFPUC is set to build a massive seawall to protect their sewer infrastructure underneath and behind the road. The seawall, due to begin construction this year, is designed to block wave attack and erosion at the seawall face. Thus, the road closure argument for erosion response is no longer a valid argument. If SFPUC engineers are successful with their wall, the seawall could arguably protect a newly renovated road segment (along with a new multi-use trail) The argument for closure South of Sloat due to erosion may be a move to avoid admitting that this is more a transit first (anti-auto) policy choice by our city agencies. It would be nice to see someone from the press check in on this.
LikeLike
Call (415) 706-6428 for information about advertising online and in the printed versions of the Richmond Review and the Sunset Beacon newspapers.