Commentary

Commentary: Paul Kozakiewicz

Battle for Park Access is Over

The November election is over and the final results have been certified. From now on, the eastern end of John F. Kennedy Drive in Golden Gate Park will be closed to vehicle traffic, except for deliveries to the de Young Museum, first responders and the park shuttle. The Upper Great Highway will also be closed on weekends starting at noon on Fridays, per a vote of the SF Board of Supervisors in December, until a study can be completed and final action taken.

The political campaign to defeat Proposition I, which would have kept JFK Drive and the Upper Great Highway open to vehicle traffic, and to pass Proposition J, which would ban most vehicles, was well organized and well run.

My house in the Sunset got a door hanger and two direct mailers opposing Prop. I and supporting Prop. J. There were also advertisements running on network television.

For about the same money, the proponents of Prop. I could have bought a BMW, but couldn’t afford the gas. I saw nothing but hard-working, dedicated volunteers on the front lines.

A special thanks to disability advocate Howard Chabner and Richmond resident and retired police commander Richard Corriea for sponsoring Prop. I. Unfortunately, taking the moral high ground doesn’t always result in election victories.

Citywide, Prop. I garnered only 35% of the vote. In District 1, only 43% of voters supported the measure to restore park roads back to pre-epidemic levels, and in District 4, 47% did so.

Concerning Prop. J, only the Sunset, Parkside and Portola districts and Lincoln Park in the Richmond District voted “no.”

The voters have spoken and now we have to do the best job possible implementing the new plan. But there was a lot to be gleaned from this political exercise, including:

• It is not a “San Francisco value” to use a pandemic to force permanent changes on the City’s transportation system. These important decisions would normally go through proper channels, including proper environmental review. The current plan limits access to Golden Gate Park’s cultural institutions and other park features for seniors, the disabled and families with young children.

• SF Supervisor Connie Chan’s resolution temporarily banning vehicles from park roadways got away from her, leading to a majority of her fellow progressive supervisors and the mayor to make the move permanent.

• “Poison pills” can be effective. It only took four members of the SF Board of Supervisors to put Prop. J on the ballot, a measure designed to compete with Prop. I.

• The mayor is no friend of the cultural institutions in the park or of westside residents who have to live with the consequences of her decision to sign legislation banning vehicles from JFK Drive.

• The SF Recreation and Park Department either has no respect for the First Amendment and the public’s right to know or is just plain incompetent. All of the public record requests and questions I made to staff were ignored or inadequately answered.

(A San Francisco department head oremployee accused of denying or ignoring a public records request knows it is turned over to the Sunshine Task Force for investigation. If the offending entity is eventually found guilty, a report is turned over to the SF Ethics Commission which conducts its own investigation before making a judgment, usually with minor enforcement consequences.)

• Truth is the first casualty in a political campaign, such as claiming JFK Drive was extremely dangerous and a part of the City’s “high injury network.”

• The SF Bicycle Coalition and Walk SF – two nonprofits that get about $1 million a year from the SF Municipal Transportation Agency’s budget (SFMTA) – are nothing more than lobbyists propping up the SFMTA’s plans. The two organizations led the effort to keep the park roadways vehicle-free.

The Bicycle Coalition and Walk SF have sole-source contracts, meaning no other nonprofit can compete for the City’s business. It’s a highly specialized service, teaching children how to ride a bike and navigating dangerous obstacles while walking.

• Ugly social media trolls, oftentimes name-calling and shaming anonymously, do not foster civil debate.

Meanwhile, the battle to dismantle the City’s transportation grid has only just begun.

Since the election, two new proposals have popped up. One would remove the elevated Central Freeway that runs between Market Street and Highway 101 to free up space for housing. The other would remove all vehicle traffic along the Embarcadero to create a pedestrian walkway.

New Supe in Town

It’s hola to new District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio and adios to former District 4 Supervisor Gordon Mar.

Mar was a good supervisor who did a lot for the Sunset, but his uncompromising style might have cost him crucial votes.

Good luck to new Supervisor Engardio as he continues the important work already in progress, especially fighting to secure water from Lake Merced (and hopefully the Pacific Ocean) for fire fighting after a major earthquake.

Two businesses Mar nominated for the City’s Legacy Business Registry were approved in December. They join 340 other businesses on the Registry that have been serving the public for at least 30 years.

The Registry, which is managed by the SF Office of Small Business and overseen by Director Katy Tang, a former District 4 supervisor, “recognizes longstanding, community-serving businesses as valuable cultural assets to the City.”

Kudos to the Peking Restaurant, 1375 Noriega St., and Artisians of San Francisco, 2549 Irving St., for their long-time service to the residents of the Sunset and Parkside districts.

Paul Kozakiewicz is an editor and former publisher of the Richmond Review and Sunset Beacon newspapers.

6 replies »

  1. Phil Ginsburg ignored Sunshine requests for emails related to the closure of the Great Highway. The Sunshine Task Force found him “willfully negligent” and the matter was referred to the Ethics Commission. As far as I know, there has been no acknowledgment of his negligence, so punishment looks good on paper but in actual practice, did they even slap his wrists for his refusal to comply with the Sunshine laws? Or does the Ethics Commission just ignore the problem if it does not fit with their agenda?

    Liked by 1 person

    • I know you guys are not used to losing, and it shows. But please don’t refer to roads and highways as San Francisco’s “transportation grid”. There is thankfully so much more to it than that. Maybe if you opened your eyes & got out from behind your windshields once or twice you would realize that, & not be so bitter that steps are being taken to improve — or in some cases, save — the lives of people who aren’t driving. Meanwhile, get over to JFK for a minute! It’s heaven on earth over there — by far the best place in SF at this point. And no, I am neither a Walk SF not an SFBC member, in case you’re wondering. I’m just someone who’s trying to get through my day-to-day life here without a car, and to cross these mean streets with life and limb intact. For those reasons, I 100% support all these new proposals you are so opposed to. And I really love our new car-free spaces. My only complaint is they’re not nearly big enough.

      Like

  2. The way I look at it is this: There are over 2,000 streets in San Francisco and over 5,000 blocks. The chances that with any given street or block that more than 50% of the population needs that street or block for important commuting purposes on a regular basis is slim to none. So it goes without saying that any time you put any street, any block, or probably any highway in San Francisco on a ballot, most people are probably going to say that they don’t use it and don’t need it so we should just shut it down. And with that principle, we could, in theory, shut down just about every single street and no one would be able to get anywhere. So putting street closures on a ballot makes no sense to me. People who need a street, need it. It’s unfair for the majority of San Franciscans to step all over those motorists’ rights & needs. On top of it all, 70% of San Franciscans own at least one car, and 30% of San Franciscans don’t drive. So 30% of voters don’t understand why any street for cars is needed. These ballot measures were a set-up for failure from the jump. Do better, San Francisco.

    Like

  3. “I’m just someone who’s trying to get through my day-to-day life here without a car, and to cross these mean streets with life and limb intact.” My God, I wish I could italicize that comment here, it’s so dramatic! San Francisco has one of the lowest pedestrian death rates of any city in the United States. We’re not even listed here: https://www.moneygeek.com/insurance/auto/analysis/most-dangerous-cities-for-pedestrians/ Katherine, I realize stepping outside of your self-victimization and actually acknowledging others who have lives that are different than yours is way beyond your comprehension, but some people actually require automobiles to commute to work, or because they’re elderly or disabled, or a myriad of other reasons. Obviously that means very little to you, because not only have you made the decision to go through your “day to day life without a car,” your goal is self-righteously force everyone else to do the same. Why do people like you choose to live in a city, of all places, when you’re so obviously unable to share space with others who might actually lead different lives than you do?

    Like

  4. Paul ignores a major motivation for the privatization of JFK into an event staging ground for “nonprofit” businesses.

    Illuminate and many others profit.

    Reagan’s grandchildren are coming to roost.

    The Board is filled with fauxgressives. Chan tried to make modifications. Dean would have caught hell from some of his entitled homeowner liberal backers had he bucked the trend.

    It was basically Wilsey, Inc. vs. the neoliberal “nonprofits” such as the horrific Bicycle Coalition (a major gentrification organization), WalkSF (an organization that does not think we should be able to walk in the Arboretum with our guests without tithing the San Francisco Botanical Garden Society a small fortune, and whoever is going to be benefiting from the stupid beer garden, bringing in the distasteful doggie heads, etc.

    And this is only starting!

    Incredibly bad public policy serving techies who can buzz around GGP on their high end bikes on a weekday!

    As for the spineless Mar. He has been replaced by a tear-everything-down corporate conservative realtor shill.

    People gonna be sorry!

    https://sfrichmondreview.com/2022/04/21/letter-to-the-editor-thanks-for-the-free-entry-into-gardens/

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s