Proposition K would start a process that could, about a year later, permanently close a large section of San Francisco’s Great Highway to car traffic so that the city could later turn it into a park. The measure would not fund the design or creation of the park.

The measure would affect a section of roadway called the Upper Great Highway, a 2-mile stretch along Ocean Beach on the city’s western edge, from Lincoln Way to Sloat Boulevard.

Proposition K marks the latest chapter in a saga that began early in the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, the Board of Supervisors closed the Upper Great Highway to vehicle traffic so that residents could walk and bike there while social distancing, to slow the disease’s spread — a move that was widely popular. In 2022, the board approved a pilot project that kept the street closed to cars on weekends but open to them during weekdays. The pilot project is set to end at the close of 2025, at which point the board would decide whether to change the road’s use.

If passed, Proposition K would decide the Upper Great Highway’s fate instead.

Listen to a summary of what this ballot measure would do.

Support

Five San Francisco supervisors co-sponsored Proposition K’s placement on the ballot: Myrna Melgar, Dean Preston, Rafael Mandelman, Matt Dorsey and Joel Engardio, who has been the most vocal of the measure’s advocates. Engardio represents the Sunset District, which contains the Upper Great Highway.

Proposition K is a “once-in-a-century opportunity” to transform the road into an iconic oceanside park that could bring the Sunset to life, Engardio has said.

Proponents say that the highway’s pilot project has been a success, drawing an average of 4,000 visitors per weekend day. Making the road a permanent park could boost business opportunities, reduce automobile pollution in the area and create more safe space for pedestrians and cyclists to enjoy the beach, they say. The park would also increase coastal access for people with mobility challenges, such as wheelchair users and those with physical disabilities.

Proposition K has secured support from prominent political figures, including Mayor London Breed, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, state Sen. Scott Wiener, BART Board director Janice Li and former District 1 Supervisor Eric Mar.

Friends of Great Highway Park, a group that hosts events and activities on the roadway during weekends, has advocated loudly for the proposition. Other supporters include a diverse array of organizations focused on urban planning, environmentalism and local politics, like Livable City, the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, Sierra Club, SPUR, the San Francisco Democratic Party, San Francisco YIMBY and GrowSF.

Opposition

Since the proposition’s announcement, it has divided residents on San Francisco’s west side. Opponents expressed frustration that Engardio did not consult them before deciding to place it on the ballot. They argue that it’s unfair for voters citywide to decide their neighborhood’s future.

Opponents say the Upper Great Highway is vital for north-south travel, and permanently closing it to vehicles could worsen traffic and divert it into residential areas, as well as lengthen commutes — a recent study by the city’s transportation agency found a minor potential impact on commutes. Some merchants worry that these inconveniences would discourage long-time customers from continuing to patronize them.

District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan represents the Richmond District, home to many Great Highway commuters in the city’s northwest. She opposes the ballot measure, arguing that it’s too extreme; she has proposed converting only half the road into recreational space and keeping the rest of it open to cars.

Some prominent local groups representing Chinese and other Asian American residents oppose Proposition K, including the Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific Democratic Club, Chinese American Democratic Club and Chinatown Merchants United Association of San Francisco.

Aaron Peskin, Board of Supervisors president and a mayoral candidate, also opposes Proposition K, calling it divisive and an “unfunded mandate.” Mayoral candidates Daniel Lurie and Mark Farrell oppose Proposition K, too.

Other detractors include Open The Great Highway, a group formed to oppose the road’s closure, and several neighborhood groups, including Planning Association for the Richmond, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods and Neighborhoods United SF.

What it would do

Proposition K would not immediately and permanently close the Upper Great Highway to cars and transform it into a park.

Instead, the measure’s passage would begin a long bureaucratic process, involving numerous local and state government agencies, that would lead to that outcome.

Because the measure would not create funding for the park, officials would have to find a way to pay for it.

If voters passed Proposition K, then the San Francisco Planning Department would propose changes to the land-use rules governing the Upper Great Highway so that it could become a park. The Board of Supervisors would publicly review that proposal, and residents and concerned citizens could attend hearings and offer comment.

The board would likely approve the proposal, as rejecting it could be seen as “not implementing the will of the voters,” said Jonathan Goldberg, legislative aide to Supervisor Engardio. That would be “unheard of,” he added, and could expose the city to risk of lawsuit.

To proceed, the city would also need approval from state regulators.

At that point — possibly 10 months to a year after Proposition K’s passage, at the soonest — the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department could start designing the new park, a process that might take several years, Goldberg said. In the meantime, the department could apply to close the road to vehicle traffic permanently, so that it could be used entirely for recreation.

The Recreation and Parks Department did not respond to requests for comment about its role in implementing Proposition K.

Cost

The San Francisco Controller’s Office analyzed what it would cost City Hall to manage the Upper Great Highway after permanently closing it to car traffic — a scenario that Proposition K’s passage would enable, but not immediately bring about.

The office’s analysis did not include the costs associated with obtaining regulatory approval for the closure. It also omitted design and construction costs for a new park.

By closing the Upper Great Highway to car traffic, the city would save an estimated $1.5 million in one-time infrastructure expenses, Deputy Controller ChiaYu Ma wrote in the office’s analysis. That factors in $4.3 million that the city would avoid spending on canceled road construction and traffic signal replacements, offset by $860,000 to $2.7 million in new costs for traffic calming measures and traffic lights to divert vehicles from the Upper Great Highway to alternative routes.

Keeping the road closed to cars may cause increased expenses for trash collection and other operations, Ma said. But overall, the city would save $350,000 to $700,000 each year in reduced road and traffic light maintenance, as well as sand removal.

Campaign finance

As of Oct. 7, the “Yes on K” campaign committee had raised $608,553, according to data from the San Francisco Ethics Commission.

Much of that money has come from leaders in tech and finance, including $350,000 from Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman; $75,000 from Emmett Shear, a partner at venture capital firm Y Combinator; $50,000 from Anatoly Yakovenko, CEO of Solana Labs, a public blockchain platform developer; and $49,900 from the Benjamin Spero, managing director of Spectrum Equity, an investment firm.

The “No on K” campaign committee had raised $110,645. Matt Boschetto, a candidate in the District 7 supervisor race, created the committee.

By a quirk of election laws, the measure-focused committee lacks the per-person $500 contribution limit that applies to committees focused on getting candidates into office.  Boschetto cannot legally use the funds from “No on K” for his supervisorial campaign. Boschetto’s father, Michael Boschetto, had contributed $50,000 to “No on K,” while the Boschetto Family Partnership added $10,000 and Matt Boschetto himself gave $5,000.

Anti-Proposition K group Open the Great Highway is the target of an ethics complaint, which alleges that it fundraised without first registering as a political action committee.

History and context

Proposition K is highly controversial. Both supporters and opponents have contested how it is presented to voters, from its title on the ballot to its official financial analysis. It has been the focus of numerous political demonstrations and media roundtables, and candidates in many supervisorial races have invoked the issue in their campaigns.

In 2022, San Franciscans considered a ballot measure that would have ended the Upper Great Highway pilot program and allowed cars back on the road seven days a week, as well as let cars resume driving on John F. Kennedy Drive in Golden Gate Park. Voters overwhelmingly rejected the measure, with 65.11% voting against it.

Closing the Upper Great Highway could leave the city’s Chinese American community feeling isolated, said Supervisor Chan at a recent debate on Proposition K, hosted by local radio station KALW. Chan, the only Asian American on the Board of Supervisors, said that Chinese residents frequently use the thoroughfare to travel between the Richmond and Sunset districts, both of which have historically served as cultural hubs for the community. But, of all drivers who take the Upper Great Highway, just 5% use it to commute between those districts, according to a 2021 study of pre-pandemic traffic data. Most drivers use it to get to the South Bay, the study found.

The section of road south of the Upper Great Highway, which is called the Great Highway Extension and connects the Sunset District to Daly City, has already been slated for closure due to coastal erosion. The Upper Great Highway faces a moderate risk of erosion, with its southern portion particularly affected.

Votes needed to pass

Proposition K requires a simple majority of “yes” votes to pass.

Click here to return to our full voter guide.

Editor’s notes:

On 10/15/2024, this article was updated with information about the share of drivers who use the Upper Great Highway to commute between neighborhoods, as well as to the South Bay.

On 10/18/2024, it was corrected to call Rep. Nancy Pelosi speaker emerita.

The post Proposition K — Authorize Great Highway to Become Car-Free, Possibly a Park appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

一個代表日落區數十名商戶的團體公開反對三藩市海洋公路（Great Highway）禁車提案。該提案將讓選民決定是否禁止車輛通行海洋公路，並將其改造為海濱公園。

該商戶團體表示，關閉海洋公路会對城市西邊的商戶造成損害。

舊金山華埠商戶聯會的主席邵旗謙（Ed Siu）代表該聯會的日落區支部表示：「我們會全力反對這項提案。」該支部於去年成立，代表日落區 45 間商户。

該團體可能是第一個正式反對此提案的組織。上個月，市長布里德（London Breed）與五名市參事將該投票提案提交到 11 月的公投裡。如果選民通過該提案，它將永久禁止車輛通行Lincoln Way與Sloat大道之間的海洋公路。目前，這條大道在周末禁止車輛通行，以便人們可以步行或騎自行車通過。

邵旗謙說，在工作日期間，海洋公路對當地商業至關重要，因為它是司機出入日落區與列治文區的捷徑。永久關閉這段路可能會阻緩交通，並損害這兩地商業的人流。邵旗謙提到，更長的通行時間也會讓送貨公司有理由推遲運送貨物。他們可能要等到街道不再擁堵時再運送貨物，導致商家在營運時間期間庫存不足。

邵旗謙表示，有其他兩條主要幹道可以作為海洋公路的替代路線，分別是日落大道（Sunset Boulevard）和19街。

「但是，如果有一天需要關閉其中一條路進行維修，怎麼辦？」他說，這種情況下，司機沒有辦法選擇其他路線，可能會導致更嚴重的延誤。

海洋公路的多樣用途 —— 即在工作日供私家車通行，在週末供行人通行 —— 是一項實驗性計畫，該計劃原定將持續到 2025 年底。屆時，市參事會將決定這條公路的長期命運。

代表日落區的第 4 區市參事殷嘉立（Joel Engardio）表示，在多種用途之間來回切換是「不可持續的。」這是因為「在每週一早上都必須重新恢復為道路的情況下，只存在於週末的公園很難建立持久的公園基礎設施，」他說。

殷嘉立提到，市參事會的大多數成員都對有意向禁止車輛在這條公路通行。他推測，在不久的將來，擁有否決權的市參事會多數成員可能會推動關閉這條道路。

作為將該投票提案列入今年公投的市參事之一，殷嘉立並沒有直接回應邵旗謙的批評。相反，他提到，該提案會將決定如何使用海洋公路權利交還居民決定，而非民選官員。

他說：「提案會給予反對關閉海洋公路的人一個機會去聯合起來並反對它。」

這提案不會影響海洋公路延伸段（Great Highway Extension），該長約一英里的路段位於Sloat大道和天際線大道（Skyline Boulevard）之間，連接三藩市和帝利市（Daly City）。市參事會已於 5 月投票決定關閉該延伸段，作為其保護沿海地段免受海平面上升侵蝕計畫的一部分。

代表列治文區的第 1 區參事陳詩敏（Connie Chan）反對該提議。她在一份聲明中表示，海洋公路是「西區重要的南北連接點」。她表示，市府應將一半的車道留給汽車通行，另一半則改為休閒空間。

殷嘉立表示，陳詩敏的提議不能讓司機和公園遊客都滿意，也不划算。他說，在這種情況下，市政府「仍將承擔維護可供汽車通行的道路產生的所有費用，而此道路的實用性卻大大降低。」

但在Taraval街做生意的長城五金老闆周紹鋆（Albert Chow）則認為陳詩敏的提議聽起來不錯。

周紹鋆說，提案中若沒有這個選項，「我將被迫投反對票」。他補充說，一些將此提案列入選票的市參事似乎對日落區的情況知之甚少。周紹鋆同時也是當地幫助促進小型企業發展的社區組織 People of Parkside Sunset（POPS）的主席，該組織的成員對此提案的有不同的看法。

彭子茵（Dorothy Pang）是一名在日落區Parkside執業的兒科牙醫， 她曾居住在海洋灘（Ocean Beach）附近。她認為，這條公路目前的使用模式就已經足夠好了。她喜歡將其用作一個美麗的海濱公園，但她也表示，許多司機需要使用該公路來往返城市之間。

「為什麼我們不能共享這個空間呢？為什麼我們要如此極端地只容納一方的存在呢？」彭子茵問。 

如需聯繫本文作者吳哲，請發郵箱至zhe@sfpublicpress.org。

The post 商戶們反對將海洋公路改建公園的提案 appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

A group representing dozens of merchants in the Sunset District is objecting to a ballot measure that would close San Francisco’s Great Highway to cars and transform it into a park. 

The closure would hurt businesses on the west side of the city, the group said. 

“We will strongly oppose the proposition,” said Ed Siu, chairman of the Chinatown Merchants United Association of San Francisco, speaking on behalf of its Sunset branch, which formed last year and represents 45 businesses. 

The group may be the first to come out officially against the proposition, which Mayor London Breed and five city supervisors last week approved to be put on the November ballot. If passed by voters, it would permanently remove car traffic from the Great Highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard. Currently, the thoroughfare closes to car traffic during weekends so that people can walk and bike its length.

The Great Highway is vital for local commerce during the week, Siu said, because it is the quickest route for drivers traveling between the Sunset and Richmond neighborhoods. A permanent closure could slow travel, discouraging commuters and harming foot traffic to businesses in both areas. The longer travel time could also give merchandise-delivery companies a reason to delay transporting goods to stores until hours when street congestion was lighter, leaving store inventories sparse until after customers had left, Siu said.

Siu acknowledged that two major arteries, Sunset Boulevard and 19th Avenue, serve as alternatives to the Great Highway. 

“But what if one day one of those routes needs to close down for maintenance?” he said. That would leave drivers without options, possibly causing worse delays. 

The Great Highway’s hybrid use — for vehicles during the week, and for pedestrians on weekends — is part of a pilot program that will be in effect through the end of 2025. At that time, supervisors would be able to decide the highway’s long-term fate.

Switching back and forth between uses is “unsustainable,” said District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio, who represents the Sunset District. That’s because “it’s difficult to create lasting park infrastructure when the weekend park has to convert back to a road every Monday morning,” he said.

A majority of the Board of Supervisors is already interested in closing the street to cars, Engardio said. He speculated that in the future, a veto-proof majority of the board might push for closure. 

One of the supervisors to put the measure on this year’s ballot, Engardio did not respond directly to Siu’s criticisms. Instead, he said that the ballot measure empowered residents, rather than supervisors, to decide how to use the highway. 

“A ballot measure gives people opposed to the closure a chance to organize and defeat it,” he said. 

The measure would not affect the Great Highway extension, a nearly one-mile stretch between Sloat and Skyline boulevards that connects San Francisco with Daly City. The Board of Supervisors voted in May to close the extension as part of a plan to protect coastal properties from erosion due to sea level rise. 

District 1 Supervisor Connie Chan, who represents the Richmond District, opposes the proposition, saying in a statement that the Great Highway is “a vital North-South connector for the Westside.” She said that the city should leave half its traffic lanes to cars and convert the other half to recreational space.

Engardio said that Chan’s suggestion would not satisfy both drivers and park goers, and it would be an inefficient use of money. The city would “still have all the expense of maintaining the road for cars, while the road has far less utility,” he said.

But Chan’s proposal sounds good to Albert Chow, owner of Great Wall Hardware, on Taraval Street, and president of the People of Parkside Sunset, a neighborhood group that helps promote small businesses. 

Without that option on the table, “I will be forced to vote no” on the measure, Chow said, adding that some of the supervisors who put it on the ballot seem to know little about the dynamics of the Sunset District. Opinions on the measure are mixed among members of Chow’s group.

Dorothy Pang, a pediatric dentist with a practice in the Parkside neighborhood and a former resident of the Ocean Beach area, said the highway is fine as it is. She enjoys using it as a beautiful outdoor park, but said she recognized that many drivers need to use it to commute in and out of the city. 

“Why can’t we share the space? Why do we have to go so extreme to make it all inclusive for one thing or another?” Pang said.

This article is part of U.S. Democracy Day, a nationwide collaborative on Sept. 15, the International Day of Democracy, in which news organizations cover how democracy works and the threats it faces. To learn more, visit usdemocracyday.org.

The post Merchants Oppose Ballot Measure to Turn Great Highway Into Park appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

The court has not ruled on the appeal. Meanwhile, the city is pursuing other strategies to reduce visible homelessness and drug use in several locations ahead of a fall filled with high-profile events, including the 30th Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders’ Meeting, which will put San Francisco in a global spotlight.

The city will also host Salesforce’s Dreamforce in and around the Moscone Center Sept. 11-13 and Fleet Week, with official events along the Embarcadero and at Fisherman’s Wharf, Oct. 2-10.

In the Civic Center neighborhood, San Francisco is employing a variety of strategies — moving a farmers market, adding a city-sponsored carnival and accelerating construction in a prominent public plaza — to allow it to clean up and hold a perimeter on areas that could be in many camera shots this fall.

The APEC summit, a Nov. 12-18 gathering for the heads of 21 Pacific Rim economies, could offer city leaders a chance to counter the prevalent “doom loop” media narrative. But depending on where attention is drawn during the event, news coverage could also reinforce the idea that the city is failing on an epic world stage.   

Early this year, Mayor London Breed declared her intentions for cleaning up the city’s image in “Roadmap to San Francisco’s Future.” Her office posted a status update this month that called out areas near City Hall where the city has “launched efforts to enliven public spaces and plazas, including the family-friendly Civic Center Carnival, a new skate park to be installed in UN Plaza” — all part of a strategy to “enhance public spaces to showcase Downtown.”

The update noted the APEC gathering as a progress point in the city’s strategy to “tell our story through proactive marketing to emphasize our strengths and reclaim our brand.”

Representatives of countries representing 40% of the global population and 50% of world trade will converge in San Francisco for the meetings, according to the conference website.  Heads of state as well as 30,000 governmental and business delegates, are expected to attend sessions at the Moscone Center and other locations across the city.  

Some of the most visible signs of the city’s failure to address extreme poverty and addiction persist in UN Plaza, the Civic Center and the Tenderloin neighborhood. The plaza holds the city’s largest open air drug market, with numerous tent encampments scattered nearby. 

Politico reported earlier this month that Gov. Gavin Newsom put pressure on city leaders “to get their collective house in order” for APEC.  

Super Bowl Set a Precedent 

San Francisco faced a similar dilemma when the city hosted Super Bowl 50 festivities in February 2016. (The Bay Area is slated to host again in 2026.) 

Then-Mayor Ed Lee was hoping to polish the city’s reputation with Super Bowl logos against the backdrop of iconic San Francisco imagery — all part of his effort to attract jobs and investment in the city. His administration was accused by advocates for the homeless of trying to remove unhoused people from anywhere near the Super Bowl events.

No Bay Area teams were in the showdown and the game itself was played in the new 49ers stadium in Santa Clara. 

Activists angry over Lee’s tactics held a large protest and tried to set-up a tent city within the Super Bowl “fan village” on the Embarcadero. It was met by a cordon of police, providing exactly the kind of news coverage city leaders were hoping to avoid. 

In 2016, San Francisco used policing and anti-camping laws to sweep the streets leading up to football’s annual showcase event. 

The current federal court order prohibits the city from clearing encampments — unless it is moving tents for street cleaning, construction or events. 

Those exceptions are central to the city’s new strategy — sweeping the streets through “street activation.” Some of the most ambitious and quickest projects will be in the UN Plaza area. 

The first change was a four-day Civic Center Carnival on Fulton Plaza between the Asian Art Museum and the Main Library that ran Aug. 24-27. The event is not a yearly occurrence and was only announced by city hall on July 31. 

Fair-like events have happened before at Civic Center, including the two-day Pride celebration in June, but other longer fairs are not typically situated next to City Hall.  

The Civic Center Carnival will be followed beginning Sept. 1 by a much larger and longer construction closure east of Fulton on UN Plaza. Daniel Montes, communications manager for San Francisco’s Department of Recreation and Parks, said the plaza will undergo a significant makeover as it is turned into a skate park and multipurpose entertainment zone.  

“The skating elements and other activities including pickleball, ping pong, tables for chess, exercise equipment will take about six weeks to prep and install,” he wrote in an email responding to questions about the project.

The street activation plan will displace the Heart of the City Farmers Market, which has been operating at UN Plaza since 1981. It will be moved to a much smaller space at Fulton Plaza on Sept. 3. 

The farmers market operates on Wednesdays and Sundays, and the city has noted that market days bring a dramatic drop in the size and intensity of the illicit drug market in and around UN Plaza. 

Heart of the City Farmers Market Executive Director Steve Pulliam said the city asked the market if it wanted to take over the plaza seven days a week, but Pulliam said there is not enough business to operate full-time. 

The city told the market that because it couldn’t occupy UN Plaza every day, the city would proceed with an experimental skatepark pilot project to try to improve conditions in the area.

Pulliam said that “metrics for success have not been defined” but added that the city assured him that it would restore the plaza and invite the farmers market to move back to UN Plaza if the plan fails to improve conditions at that site.  

Civic Virtue or Desperation Move?

Montes told the San Francisco Public Press that this was the best plan state, local and federal officials could come up with to change conditions in UN Plaza and adjacent areas in the Tenderloin and South of Market neighborhoods. 

“Rec and Park rangers have been closely monitoring the plaza since earlier this year in partnership with local law enforcement and community outreach workers with the ultimate objective to make these San Francisco public spaces safer for all,” he wrote.

Pulliam said he has been told that more Recreation and Parks rangers and ambassadors from Urban Alchemy — a nonprofit that hires people who were formerly incarcerated to help keep streets clean and engage with community members who might need help — will be assigned to UN Plaza when it reopens. 

Urban Alchemy ambassadors are already stationed in the area. Last Wednesday, a person wearing the Urban Alchemy logo told a group of people crowded into a corner of the plaza to “clear out — you need to move your stuff or it will be taken!” 

Additional reporting by Madison Alvarado and Yesica Prado.

The post SF Uses Events, Construction Projects to Clear Streets Ahead of Pacific Rim Economic Summit, Other Gatherings appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition N would give the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department control of the Music Concourse Garage in Golden Gate Park. The 800-space parking garage is managed by a nonprofit created by a ballot measure in 1998 that raised private donations to help finance the facility. Supporters of Proposition N cite a series of financial scandals and mismanagement of the garage and say the parking lot is underutilized because parking rates are set too high. They want to amend the earlier ballot measure to give control of the facility to Rec and Park.

This measure requires more than 50% affirmative votes to pass.

Proposition N would overturn part of a ballot measure (then-Proposition J) passed by voters in June 1998 that placed construction of the Music Concourse Garage in Golden Gate Park in the hands of a nonprofit called the Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority.

The authority took over management of the garage from the Music Concourse Community Partnership, another nonprofit created to raise tax deductible donations to build the 800-space garage. Organizers raised $36 million of the $55 million needed to build the garage. Ongoing profits from the garage were supposed to pay off loans taken out to cover the balance.

The original measure also called for any excess parking funds to be returned to the operation, maintenance, improvement or enhancement of Golden Gate Park. No such funds have been distributed.

In 2008, a $4 million embezzlement scandal by a former chief financial officer rocked the original fundraising nonprofit. Since then, the concourse authority has struggled to pay rent to the city.

Critics of the nonprofit said that the parking spaces are overpriced, with many of the 800 parking spaces often going unused. They also criticize the authority for not providing discounts to park employees who work in the De Young Museum, California Academy of Sciences and other attractions near the garage.

No opponents to the measure have placed a counter argument for maintaining the current system in the official ballot pamphlet.

Mayor London Breed issued the “Official Proponent Argument.” She said that the passage of Proposition N would allow the city “to spend public dollars on the garage, which creates flexibility over the management and parking rates.” She said the change would make it possible for the city to offer discounts to low-income and disabled visitors who drive to the park. The mayor said that “flexible pricing” will also allow the city to pay down the debt incurred from building the garage. 

The post Proposition N — Golden Gate Park Underground Parking Facility; Golden Gate Park Concourse Authority appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition J is primarily designed to counter another measure on the ballot — Proposition I — which would overturn a Board of Supervisors ordinance passed in April 2022 closing off John F. Kennedy Drive in Golden Gate Park to motorized vehicles. It requires more than 50% affirmative votes to pass.

Proposition J would add those changes to the park code. The goal is to shift park access away from car traffic and toward pedestrian and bicycle use.

The measure would also protect the weekend closure of the Great Highway along Ocean Beach and plans to turn part of that roadway between Sloat and Skyline boulevards into nature trails and parking. City planners say that erosion from sea level rise makes the maintenance of the entire Great Highway unfeasible in the long term. Changes to the Great Highway and wastewater treatment facilities are outlined in the Ocean Beach Climate Adaptation Project.

The Yes on J campaign claims that public use of the park has increased by 35% since the closure of JFK and the Great Highway and that 70% of people surveyed support the closure. No details were given on how the survey was conducted. They also cite traffic data that found JFK Drive was among the top 13% of most dangerous San Francisco streets when it was open to car traffic. The campaign also said that the city has added 29 new ADA parking spaces behind the Music Bandshell, exceeding the number of spaces that were eliminated when JFK Drive was turned into the JFK Promenade.

A paid ballot statement from the Prop. J Hurts Seniors campaign asserts that “without access to JFK Drive, it is impossible for many seniors to visit Golden Gate Park, its museums and attractions,” and adding that “many seniors do not have access to reliable public transit and cannot walk long distances and rely on cars to get around.”

Proposition J would pass on a simple majority vote. The Board of Supervisors can amend the ordinance by a majority vote. If Proposition J passes with more votes than Proposition I. then the latter would have no legal effect.

The post Proposition J — Recreational Use of JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

Proposition I would overturn an ordinance that has closed John F. Kennedy Drive in Golden Gate Park to most private motor vehicles seven days a week and closed the Great Highway along Ocean Beach to such traffic on weekends and holidays. The city would be forbidden from proceeding with plans to eventually close the Great Highway between Sloat and Skyline boulevards — a stretch that is subject to coastal erosion. This measure requires more than 50% affirmative votes to pass.

This ballot measure would amend the park code to override a Board of Supervisors decision from May 2022 that turned JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park into the JFK Promenade and closed the Great Highway on weekends.

JFK Drive between Kezar Drive and the Great Highway was closed to motor vehicles seven days a week in April 2020. The then-temporary plan was to create “social distancing” space for people to walk, run, jog or bicycle during the COVID-19 pandemic. A similar section of the Great Highway at Ocean Beach was closed for the same purposes on weekends and holidays.

Under Proposition I, JFK Drive would be completely open on weekdays, but still closed to private cars on weekends from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. between April and September and on holidays. The Great Highway would be open to vehicle traffic seven days a week, except for special city approved events.

Proposition I would also forbid the city from moving forward with a plan to eventually close the Great Highway between Sloat Boulevard and Skyline Boulevard to private vehicles. Under the current plan, traffic would be diverted to the other side of the San Francisco Zoo along Skyline and Sloat boulevards. The change is part of a larger effort called the Ocean Beach Climate Adaptation Project. Work could begin as soon as late 2023 and last four years. 

The Great Highway is subject to erosion due to sea level rise, and city planners believe it is only a matter of time before it will be impossible to maintain the entire roadway for use by motor vehicles. Instead, the area would be turned into a series of nature paths and a parking lot.

The idea is similar to what was done with a dangerous and erosion-prone section of Highway 1 in San Mateo County called the Devil’s Side, which was closed upon completion of the Tom Lantos Tunnel, which routes traffic through San Bruno Mountain. The Devil’s Slide section remains open to pedestrians and bicycles, but no major repair work is done on the roadbed, which is eventually expected to fall into the ocean.

The San Francisco Controller’s Office estimates that maintaining the entire Great Highway would cost at least $80 million over the next 20 years.

Proposition I would also take JFK Drive and the Great Highway out of the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Parks Department and place the roadways under the purview of the Department of Public Works, which manages most of the city’s roadways.

Supporters of Proposition I, including disability rights advocate Howard Chabner, argued that closing JFK Drive and the Great Highway “hurts people with disabilities, seniors and families” by limiting their access to areas in the park. Supporters also contend that Proposition I will “move cars back to major roadways and off local streets that aren’t designed for high volume traffic.”

In a paid ballot argument, the group Seniors for Inclusion said that nearly 1,000 free parking spaces and a dozen ADA parking spaces near major attractions such as the Conservatory of Flowers, DeYoung Museum and California Academy of Sciences can no longer be accessed. 

Opponents of Proposition I include Supervisors Matt Dorsey, Gordon Mar, Merna Melgar, Dean Preson and Hilary Ronen. Supervisor Ronen said the decision to close JFK Drive was “a consensus introduced by Mayor London Breed and passed by seven board members.” She believes it provides “a protected, safe open space for recreational use.” Ronen is especially critical of the section of Proposition I that would disrupt the Ocean Beach Climate Adaptation Project, which includes the eventual closure of part of the Great Highway, but she said it would also force a halt to plans to “protect the Westside’s Sewage Treatment facilities that are at risk of falling into the sea.”  

Proposition I prompted some members of the Board of Supervisors to put Proposition J on the ballot, which would make the changes a permanent part of the park code.

If Proposition I passes, the board may later amend the ordinance by a two-thirds vote, but only if the amendments are either consistent with the measure’s purposes or required by a court. If Proposition I passes with more votes than Proposition J, then Proposition J would have no legal effect.

The post Proposition I — Vehicles on JFK Drive in Golden Gate Park and the Great Highway appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

The racial reckoning that followed the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer inspired the reexamination of many historical figures, including John Muir, the man often called “the father of the national parks.” 

Even the Sierra Club, which Muir founded, issued a statement in June 2020 acknowledging some racist language in his early writings. It read, in part: “Muir was not immune to the racism peddled by many in the early conservation movement. He made derogatory comments about Black people and Indigenous peoples that drew on deeply harmful racist stereotypes, though his views evolved later in his life.”  

Muir has been honored extensively, with his name on many sites and institutions, including 28 schools, a college, a number of mountains, several trails, a glacier, a forest, a beach, a medical center, a highway and Muir Woods National Monument, one of the most visited destinations in the Bay Area. But in the time since the Sierra Club issued its nuanced statement, some have come to believe that Muir’s legacy should be diminished because of his racist statements, despite his contributions to the preservation of wilderness and later writings praising native tribes. 

John Muir is such a touchstone and cultural icon for Californians that “Civic” decided to take a look again at his legacy by traveling to Yosemite National Park in Mariposa County. 

Choosing which stories to tell

Lee Stetson has studied John Muir and performed as Muir in six one-man shows he wrote about the 19th- and early 20th-century naturalist. Stetson has thought long and hard about Muir’s legacy and the disparaging statements he made about impoverished people he encountered in his early journeys. 

“Context is the question,” Stetson said. “We have to consider the comments from a young man who was first encountering the Black people in the South as he walked down to the Florida keys from Kentucky.” Muir’s comments on the Indian cultures that he met related to what Stetson called the “shattered cultures,” or tribes decimated by displacement. 

Muir called the handful of Miwuk living in Yosemite who had survived a racial genocide “dirty.” But his later writings show that his attitude shifted over time.

“When he arrived in Alaska” in 1899, Stetson said, “he was accompanied by and guided by Indians. He became incredibly fond of them. He was engaged with Indian cultures that were fully intact. His understanding of their loyalties, their families, their culture in general, was certainly very positive in every way.”

Regardless of whether one agrees with the argument for putting John Muir in historical context, when it comes to national parks, we often forget the people for the trees. But some of the Miwuk — people who still call Yosemite and the land surrounding it home — say the credit given to Muir for his stewardship and preservation efforts are overstated. 

“We were the first stewards of the land to be there,” said Sandra Roan Chapman, chairperson of the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation. “They say John Muir found Eden. He didn’t find Eden. It was always there.” 

“Everything you read about in Yosemite is about John Muir,” she said, adding that members of other tribes have told her they feel the way she does, wondering why Muir’s name is on so many sites that are significant to Indigenous people. “Why do we always have to have John Muir on our sites? So, to me, it’s like, if it wasn’t him, it would have been somebody else.” 

She said that when Muir entered Yosemite, he knew nothing about the impoverished people in the region who survived by working for mostly white tourists. 

One might argue that debating John Muir’s legacy centers the focus on one man, rather than sharing the history of displacement, violence and inequity faced by native tribes.  

The members of the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation have more pressing things to contemplate than John Muir’s legacy. They are fighting for federal recognition, acquiring resources for their community and keeping their culture alive. They recently reached an agreement with the National Park Service giving them control of the site of a former native village in Yosemite Valley that was demolished by the park service in the 1960s. Construction on the site is under way to give the tribes a cultural and educational center in the heart of Yosemite. (The Public Press will share stories about those developments in future reporting.)

Rather than dwell on the negative things Muir said, Chapman said she prefers to focus on the possibilities for her tribe and others.

“They banished us out of Yosemite, but we’re still here,” she said. “And because we have our laughter, and we have our ceremonies, and we stay positive with everything that we’ve gone through, all the hardships and everything that we’ve had, we still stay positive. And that’s what you have to do.” 

Fighting for nature

San Francisco prides itself on being green, but much of those bragging rights come from the clean hydro power from the O’Shaughnessy Dam at the mouth of Hetch Hetchy Valley. Since the completion of the system carrying water from Yosemite in the early 1930s, it has given San Franciscans pristine water to drink and with which to flush their toilets. 

Muir spent the later years of his life fighting the construction of the dam, taking a major role in a national campaign to defeat the project. Despite his efforts, the trees in the valley were cut for lumber and the sacred sites of the Miwuk were drowned when dam construction began in 1916. 

In addition to his work as an actor and playwright, Stetson served on the Mariposa County Board of Supervisors from 2011 to 2015 and has strong feelings about the lost valley.  

“To drown it to a depth of 400 feet was to essentially obliterate a great national treasure,” he said. “They could very easily have stored that water downstream. We could do that today. There would be some loss of electrical power that is currently generated, but that can be replaced.”

Stetson is a supporter of the Restore Hetch Hetchy movement that wants to remove the dam and store the water downstream. 

“You could easily blow a hole in it — most of that sand would pour out that has built up at the bottom of it,” Stetson said. 

“In a few generations, we could have that valley back to us to a significant degree,” he said. “It would have a bathtub ring around it for a number of centuries. But hey, the planet can handle a couple of centuries.”

Echoing Muir

In our interview with Stetson, we had him take on the role of Muir, something he has done in his plays and at live events the world over, using his deep knowledge of the man’s writings and experiences. 

In the most important political moment of his life, John Muir convinced President Teddy Roosevelt to spend three days camping with him in Yosemite in May of 1903. Muir influenced the nature-loving president to expand Yosemite and create more national parks and monuments, setting a significant precedent for land conservation. 

I asked Stetson, speaking as Muir, where he would take political leaders today. 

“The Hetch Hetchy Reservoir,” he said. “I think one could find a great deal of instruction in it. And then, take them to Yosemite Valley and to show them what the Hetch Hetchy could look like. To preserve it is to preserve the loving process of creation. It is an enormously important thing to be doing.”

Stetson as Muir answered our final question: What would you tell the average person about why we still need wilderness?

“To go to it,” he said. “Go, because everybody needs to be kind, at least to themselves. And go because everybody needs beauty as well as bread, in places to pray and then play, where nature may heal and cheer and give strength to body and soul alike.

The post John Muir, Racial Politics and the Restoration of Indigenous Lands in Yosemite appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

More than half a century after they occupied the island in a monthslong protest for indigenous sovereignty, Native American activists gathered on Alcatraz on Saturday to watch the nation’s first indigenous secretary of the interior commemorate the occasion. 

“The occupation of Alcatraz Island by indigenous people in 1969 was more than a call for action. It was a cry for a sense of community and the life ways that were stolen from us,” said Interior secretary Deb Haaland. “Alcatraz was born out of desperation. Out of this we gained a sense of community and visibility in the eyes of the federal government. But more than that, our indigenous identities were somehow restored.” 

Eighty indigenous activists landed on Alcatraz on Nov. 20, 1969, exercising a right established in the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868, which said unused federal lands could be claimed by Native Americans. Their arrival marked the beginning of what would become a 19-month occupation that would spark a national movement for indigenous rights, the Red Power movement.  

The events leading up to the occupation were a continuation of centuries of racist, violently oppressive policies targeting Native American people. In 1953, Congress passed the Termination Policy, ending federal recognition of many tribes and calling for their lands to be sold. In 1956, the Relocation Act encouraged Native Americans to relocate to cities to find work. 

Over the course of the Alcatraz occupation, hundreds of people gathered under the name Indians of All Tribes and established kitchens, a medical clinic, a school and even a radio station. But they also suffered losses. Occupation leader Richard Oakes and his wife left the island after their 13-year-old daughter died after falling from a stairwell. The U.S. government cut off power and access to a barge supplying water. Later, fires destroyed several buildings.  

“Many people romanticize the occupation of Alcatraz. But we cannot overlook the hardships that families endured over those two years,” Haaland said. “But because of the sacrifices that were made in this place, we no longer have to act out of desperation. The fact that I’m standing here today is a testament to that fact. I am here, we are here. And we’re not going anywhere. We’re in a new era.” 

Haaland outlined several new policies the Biden administration has advanced. These include protections for Bears Ears National Monument in Utah, and for Chaco Canyon and surrounding lands in New Mexico. The interior department and 16 other federal agencies have also committed to protecting tribal treaty rights in their work. The recently approved infrastructure bill will invest billions of dollars into replacing old infrastructure, adding climate adaptations and funding relocation from climate-change threatened areas in indigenous communities, she said. 

Among those listening to Haaland’s remarks was LaNada War Jack, an Alcatraz occupier. The secretary had met with her and other organizers briefly before the official event. 

“It was a tremendous honor for us. And we were really happy that she came,” War Jack said.  

The audience for the secretary’s remarks was limited to a small group of indigenous organizers and members of the press, but activists continued the commemoration throughout the day in the New Industries Building. In addition to remembering the occupation and acknowledging its legacy, speakers underscored ongoing activism.  

Jessica James, War Jack’s daughter, presented a plan for a cultural center and museum on Alcatraz for which Indians of All Tribes is pursuing funding. The proposal is adapted from a version developed by War Jack more than 50 years ago. James said more people should know about the occupation and its significance. 

“It was really awesome to read about the occupation in history books, but you really don’t learn it until you’re taking an American Indian Studies class or something like that,” James said. “I think that we need to continue educating our people and the public about the occupation. And that’s what I think is so crucial about having a cultural center and museum here on the island, to provide that education for people.” 

Morning Star Gali, a member of the Ajumawi band of the Pit River Tribe and California Tribal and Community Liaison with the International Indian Treaty Council, said her tribe had recently succeeded in two efforts to reclaim its ancestral land. Organizers defeated a wind farm project that Gali said was threatening an environmentally and culturally important site on their lands. PG&E recently returned 786 acres that were originally purchased by Mount Shasta Power in the early 1900s in a deal that tribal members described as deceitful and coercive. Some 5,000 acres will return to the tribe, Gali said, which she described as progress but not enough. 

“All PG&E and publicly managed lands within our 100-square-mile territory need to be returned to the Pit River tribe,” Gali said. “The protection of our sacred lands, our waterways, cannot effectively happen without tribal management and stewardship.” 

On Thursday, thousands of people will gather on the island before dawn in the annual Sunrise Ceremony, further commemorating the occupation by greeting the day with prayers and song. 

A segment from our radio show and podcast, “Civic.” Listen at 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays at 102.5 FM in San Francisco, or online at ksfp.fm, and subscribe on Apple, Google, Spotify or Stitcher. 

The post Native Activists, Interior Secretary, Commemorate Alcatraz Occupation appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.

A segment from our radio show and podcast, “Civic.” Listen at 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays at 102.5 FM in San Francisco, or online at ksfp.fm, and subscribe on Apple, Google, Spotify or Stitcher. 

The post Most Litter Hauled from Beaches in 2020 Was Plastic, Foundation Reports appeared first on San Francisco Public Press.