Editor,
I enjoyed reading Julie Pitta’s commentary this morning in the Richmond Review and it felt validating as I agree with her about many things. One exception is my disagreement in the reason stated for Gordon Mar losing the election to Joel Engardio in District 4. Gordon Mar’s defeat had to do not only with the increased crime in his District and unpopular housing policies, but mainly because of his broken promises to the residents in District 4.
His sudden, thoughtless closure of the Great Highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Blvd., (which he managed to effectuate in 2020 without public notice or input from those impacted) sent between 17,600-19,900 vehicles per DAY, 24/7, into the quiet streets of the Ocean Beach community. Big rigs, vans, buses, construction trucks, motorcycles and dirt bikes in groups of 100+ flooded the north/south streets filled with families immediately and continuously. The environmental dangers of noise and air pollution from the diverted traffic and the destruction of our sand dunes from unrestricted foot traffic are ongoing and thanks to him. He promoted and held citywide advertised events on a Wildlife Sanctuary, oblivious to the destruction of a protected home to an endangered species.
Gordon Mar’s immoral use of a state-of-emergency to further his political favor with WalkSF and the Bicycle Coalition cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars as he directed Prop K funds to support closing streets, slowing streets, filling them with speed humps and speed cushions, and creating a plan for something he named “Neighborways” that nobody wants. He created costly problems and sought praise for their expensive solutions. District 4 needs the Great Highway to be consistently open and safely shared by drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists at least during the nights when it’s empty and weekdays when its jammed. It is in dire need of regular maintenance. Mar’s Pilot Project cannot collect the usage data it’s mandated to collect due to inadequate highway maintenance. The entire west side of San Francisco needs maintained streets, parking, and at least equal attention to the needs of drivers as well as bicyclists.
Gordon Mar may have been a nice guy, but he was terrible at his job. A change was needed, and Joel Engardio won due to impacted residents in a predominantly Chinese community voting for the first time in decades against an Asian incumbent candidate. It isn’t necessarily true that the vote reflects a majority being on board with the opposing candidate’s complete platform. Voting Mar out of office strongly influenced many to support anyone else no matter who that was. Whether or not his successor is an improvement remains to be seen. Let’s hope so.
Sincerely,
Judi Gorski
D4 Resident/Voter 45+ years
Categories: letter to the editor
Richmond Review/Sunset Beacon 
Don’t criticize Supervisor Mar. The writer conveniently forgets that the voters rejected Proposition I last November by an overwhelming 65 percent majority. This Proposition was called Open the Great Highway Alliance and funded by the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco to the tune of nearly $800,000. This same group filed a lawsuit which went all the way to the California Courts of Appeal. It was dismissed earlier this year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Prop I results are for a city-wide proposition. Whereas Ms. Gorski’s is speaking about the reaction in the Sunset. It is possible (and as a resident, I can say probable) that many in the Sunset district do not support the closure of the Great Highway, due to the effect Ms. Gorski outlined. Prop I also included the JFK closure and DPW taking over maintenance, which could have also influenced the results. For those reasons, using Prop I to somehow demonstrate the sunset district is 65% in favor of closure is incorrect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reason Prop I lost was because the SFMTA and the bike Lobby had taxpayer funds to promote no on I and millions more from ride share and tech companies. Every taxpayer in SF has to support the Bike Coalition, which represents maybe the 3% of the total residents of SF. Also, the Bike Lobby outspent the people who drive by millions. Uber and Lyft gave millions to the bike lobby so they could put misleading political ads on TV. The Bike Coalition has an unethical alliance with Tumlin and the ride share companies. It’s quid pro quo all the way. The Bike Lobby, which includes SFMTA, encourages in their propaganda , “Shared mobility.” That’s doublespeak for Uber and Lyft. They will make driving and parking SO MISERABLE that people will be forced to use use the two ride share corporations. Quid pro quo. Meanwhile, the chump taxpayer continues to pay Tumlin’s salary, $448,000 and the salaries of the bike coalition officers. SFMTA needs oversight, a financial and performance audit, and Tumlin, a bike bro who prioritizes bikes over transit, needs to go.
LikeLiked by 3 people
It never ceases to amaze me how myopic and hypocritical people who support uber Progressive issues can be. Tech clobbered Prop I with millions, and they whine about Dede Wilsey and the De Young?? LOL!
LikeLike
Don’t forget that the Westside supported Prop I, not J. There are too many inaccuracies in your post to address, suffice it to say that the Mayor wanted JFK closed and her minions made it happen. Breed will be out after 2024 and the majority do not supply the slow/closed streets.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Your pushing a donation of 800K to the JFK vote but you don’t seem to mind the millions given to these “non profits” by the city. At least her donation was her money not the our money. I find it strange that prop I lost by the same margin prop J won. The vote was also 56 years in the making. Giving them a whole lot of time to organize, fund raise and push lies. So after 56 years the SFBC and the rest of the “non profit” have wiggled their way into SF government and our agencies.
LikeLike
sfactivist. Yes. “The vote was 56 years in the making.” The People, finally, overcame the nonstop complaining of, and catering to, motorists. By overwhelming majorities The People citywide and, yes, on the Westside decided to set aside a couple of locations in San Francisco where the auto hegemony has been dismantled.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more with Ms. Gorski’s assessment of Gordon Mar’s policies regarding the Great Highway. His decision to close the Great Highway in April 2020 created a chaotic and unsafe situation on the residential streets of the Sunset. As the traffic became more intense, more unsafe, especially on the LGH, in June of 2020 I wrote to him about the disturbing unsafe conditions from an unending stream of cars but never got a reply. This was pretty much the same experience that many of us experienced with him. No response, with a few exceptions. At least Joel definitely responds to his constituents and is an expert communicator. Mar put his relationship with the Bike Lobby ahead if his constituents. There is not any other reason he lost. People are angry with the city government from the Mayor on down because of the extreme positions of the bike crowd. The fact that the city plans to close a needed highway during week is crazy. You will have a needed highway sitting empty all week long while the poor chump working person is stuck in heavy traffic on high-injury streets in the Sunset. Everybody talks about Vision Zero being SO important until it curtails the bike riding for the bike bros. Then Vision Zero does not matter. Tumlin should be fired, like he was fired from his job in Santa Monica. We need a reasonable person as Gen. Manager of SFMTA who focuses on needed transit instead of promoting a fantasy that we all will be cheerfully riding bikes everywhere. It’s insane. We need Transit and transitioning to EVs. Biking is not a serious response to climate change.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I agree with Judi Gorski’s letter in its entirety. He failed as a Supervisor due to his lack of political will and lack of integrity. He was elected to help the Sunset and instead h hurt it through his actions. Stephen J. Gorski, D 4 resident + voter for over 45 years.
LikeLiked by 3 people
All this weight being given to the cycling community is amusing in its self imposed creation of a cycling behemoth which wreaks havoc on the poor suffering motorists. I can only say, “I wish it were true.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is true other wise how would less than 3% of the people “living” in SF get as much as the SFBC and their followers receive to push anti car agenda in the city. The city has provided millions to the SF Park Alliance, SFBC, SFWalk, Kidssafe and a whole bunch of other “non profits”. But yea you push your propaganda.
LikeLike
I agree with the author that Gordon Mar was defeated in the election due to broken promises to his constituents. He said if the traffic mitigation efforts MTA instituted (blocking off streets, adding speed humps and speed cushions on the neighborhood streets parallel to the Upper Great Highway) didn’t solve the traffic problems in the beach community caused by the overflow of thousands of cars diverted from the closed Great Highway that he would reopen it. He also said he would ask the Mayor to include funding in her budget for more sand removal on the Upper Great Highway. He did neither.
I disagree with the comment that the Prop I result is proof that a majority of voters want permanent closure of the Great Highway, as Prop I did not exclusively apply to opening or closing the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln and Sloat. It covered 2 other roads and more issues. We want safe, shared open roads that accommodate driving and parking, as well as bicycling and walking. We want our D4 Supervisor to represent us.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree with Ms. Gorski 100% – she has accurately described the reasons I voted for Gordon Mar’s opponent in the last election. The minute he unnecessarily closed the UGH, our neighborhood experienced the worst imaginable traffic impact, creating extremely unsafe conditions. San Francisco does not suffer from a lack of beautiful places to ride a bike or take a walk – there was and is absolutely no need to close a much-needed 4-lane highway that serves as a critical artery for motorists, commuters and emergency responders. Those of us who live in D4 see how his terrible decisions still reverberate to this day.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Save the businesses that are left. First SFMTA closed Market Street to cars. Now the downtown is dead. The street closures and other traffic control experiments on San Francisco’s streets are killing the commerce that is struggling in neighborhoods be repeating the same filed policies that killed Market Street, Van Ness, Mission Street and the Castro. Open the streets bring back parking to save the businesses that are left. There are very few bikes on the bike paths in San Francisco, but there are a lot of closed stores along those paths.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Teresa Shaw. Please explain the “inaccuracies” in my earlier Reply. I am always open to constructive engagement. Re Mayor Breed’s “minions” who “made it happen” for JFK Promenade. If you are correct what makes you conclude Breed will be “out after 2024”? Re Proposition I. There is a precinct which runs parallel from Lincoln Way to Sloat Blvd. adjacent to The Great Walkway. This precinct, at Ground Zero so to speak, voted Yes on I. Granted. One Precinct does not the “Westside” make. But it throws some ocean spray on the declaration the “Westside supported Prop I.” All the “quotation” marks are yours.
LikeLike
The Sunset and Richmond districts voted FOR Prop I, if I remember correctly. A lot of the rest of voters who don’t even USE the Upper Gerat Highway probably looked at the scare tactics of the $80M “price tag” of keeping the Great Highway extension open and protecting the Wastewater Treatment facility that was married to the proposition as a reason to vote it down. Mar talked out of both sides of his mouth and lost the election over it. Will our new Supervisor Engardino be any better? Time will tell, but I believe he is also Pro Closure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I completely agree with Ms. Gorski’s letter re: ex-Supervisor Gordon Mar and the very toxic influence he had on the community. The Great Highway had been shared for several decades by cars, bicyclists and pedestrians with no clashes or conflicts whatsoever. When Mr. Mar lied to the city by claiming he was closing it solely for pandemic reasons, then showed his true motives by trying to prevent it from re-opening to vehicles again, it completely divided the community. Mar is yet another example of a supervisor we see more and more of in San Francisco… “leadership” who are more interested in forcing their own personal agendas on the city rather than represent the constituents who voted them into office.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I will always appreciate Supervisor Mar’s Profile in Courage. In this instance Gordon stood up for something he believes in. I am sure he can sleep well at night fully realizing he took a principled stand. Not to be swayed by the Mob.
LikeLike
He did eventually reopen the highway during the week 1 year and 5 months after he gave the go ahead to close it. This was after an onslaught of complaints by residents impacted by unsafe traffic. Then he undid that with his “pilot project” which cemented the full closure in 2026. Unfortunately, he didn’t appreciate his loss of support in his own district. No matter what his motives, the D4 residents wanted anybody but Mar in the last election.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gordon Mar fell victim to the free-floating anger so widespread in our country these days. Anyone who can capitalize on the mood of grievance stands a good chance of coming to power. (Hint: Orange) The big crime he was initially accused of was failing to go along with the vengeful school board recall wave. And then not joining in the D.A. recall mob. Now the big issue for these writers seem to be his hasty, arrogant move to “close the Great Highway” when, in fact, it was a difficult, long-debated issue with eager partisans on both sides. Supervisor Mar was one of the people who came together to find a compromise acceptable to both (just as he did in the controversies over the Farmers Market). In this, as in all his other actions, he listened to the community’s opinions and sought to act for the good of all. Apparently forgotten are the many innovations he brought forward for the district, the many community meetings and events he attended. I don’t think anyone could have been more dedicated to his job and worked harder for the public. It’s unfortunate that he feel victim to the angry mood of the times. We’ll soon see if anyone else can do better with the ongoing problems of crime, unaffordable housing, etc.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paint him as the saintly “victim of anger” all you want. The fact remains that he unabashedly lied to the city by claiming he was shutting down the highway for pandemic reasons when he had every intention of single-handedly closing it to vehicles without any input from the rest of us. That’s not a victim… that’s a liar and a cheat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mar insisted it was a temporary closure until he didn’t need to. That’s how he first lulled us into acquiescence until we realized he intended full closure. He has cost the city $$$$ to appease us with speed bumps, stop signs, etc., but not as much as the Bike Coalition has cost the hardworking taxpayers so high-income elite bike bros can pedal around freely while they “work” from home.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sorry but Mar lied to us on too many occasions. He lost because he supported closing the Great Highway, he supported, slow streets and now neighborways. Anyone who doesn’t see that is blind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mar did nothing good for the district.
He was corrupt and needed to go.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The realpolitik reason Gordon was defeated is the end game of Mayor Breed’s blatant manipulation of the redistricting process. Her handpicked committee members tweaked the boundaries of “Progressive” districts D1, D4 and D5. Engardio, a perennial losing candidate and mouthpiece for StopCrimeSF, cleverly used the redistricting along with shameful law and order “dog whistles” to eke out a Win in a District tailor made by London Breed.
LikeLike
yea you believe what you want and we will know the truth, Mar lost because he didn’t represent the majority of the voters in the Sunset due to his blatant lies and his desire to turn the sunset into downtown. NO THANKS.
LikeLiked by 2 people
No, Gordon wasn’t reelected because he is corrupt and part of the DSA graft machine that has ruined so much of San Francisco.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh so you mean the graft machine headed by Breed, Breed’s childhood friend Nuru, mega-donors Conway and Arthur Rock and the Republican billionaire backed LLC who paid Mrs. Jenkins $160,000 during the recall.
That’s the graft you are talking about, right?
You people invent history. What is this DSA graft machine that you carelessly toss out without any evidence, when what I just said in the first paragraph has substantive facts supporting my statements.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yea, everyone seems to forget the election was close, and Joel won by less than 500 votes. The blatant redistricting process, the corruption worked.
So the rest of y’all want to blather about how Mar lost because of this and that, but we are talking about less than 500 votes which is a fact. And another fact is that the corruptly appointed redistricting board blatantly changed the district lines to favor candidates Breed wanted.
Lee is right. They are using law and order dog whistles because they have nothing else. And they don’t even have a solution for what they are saying is a problem beyond blaming the so called “progressives” on the board. It’s a sham sponsored by the donors who buy these people.
LikeLiked by 1 person