"Unlawful" Great Highway park faces legal challenge
Driving the news: Earlier this week, Proposition K opponents filed a lawsuit against San Francisco questioning the legality of the measure and how it was placed on the ballot.
Why it matters: The lawsuit is the latest escalation in the fight over the planned park set to open next month. It has split voters on the city's east and west sides over " the war on cars" and sparked a recall campaign against District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio who led the effort to put it on the ballot.
Catch up quick: Proposition K asked voters whether to permanently ban cars along a 2-mile stretch of the highway and turn it into an oceanfront park.
While the measure passed with 54% approval, voters in the Sunset and Richmond districts largely opposed the plan due to concerns over traffic and longer commutes, in sharp contrast to the approval it gained from voters in the city's eastern districts.
Between the lines: The plaintiffs in the case, including Matthew Boschetto, a former Board Supervisor candidate and leader of the " No on K" campaign, contend that voters do not have the right to approve the street closure and that the park proposal should be subject to the state's environmental review law.
The suit claims the defendants — Engardio, Supervisors Myrna Melgar, Rafael Mandelman, Matt Dorsey and former Supervisor Dean Preston — "ignored the state's plenary authority over traffic control and roads and unlawfully placed a measure before San Francisco voters," according to the lawsuit.
What they're saying: Boschetto argued that the ballot measure should be voided and that the park conversion should go through the legislative process with community input rather than being decided upon by voters.
"I don't have a complete prohibition to any park being there, but if we're going to do this, there's a right way to do it and it's been done the completely wrong way," he told Axios Wednesday.
The other side: Lucas Lux, president of Friends of Ocean Beach Park, said he doesn't believe the "lawsuit has any merit" and feels confident that it will be dismissed.
"If you buy their argument, you can't have JFK promenade anymore. You can't have the car-free road through McLaren park. You can't have this new Ocean Beach park. The consequences are so broad and sweeping and out-of-step with the intent of the state legislation," Lux said, adding that such projects have already been granted exemptions from environmental reviews.
"We want everyone's voices to be at the table, but the way to solve problems is not through lawsuits, it's through working together," he added.
What's next: The plaintiffs are seeking a court injunction to block this Friday's scheduled closure to vehicles and the park's opening on April 12.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Parents must stay alert as public schools hide life-altering decisions from families
There is a quiet but deeply troubling trend sweeping through our nation's public schools—a movement in which teachers, counselors and administrators are actively intervening in children's lives on the most personal of issues while deliberately keeping parents in the dark. Across the country, lawsuits are mounting as schools are found secretly facilitating the gender transition of minors without informing their parents. This is not just a pedagogical overreach—it is a gross violation of parental rights and a dangerous assumption that strangers know better than mothers and fathers what is best for their children. Consider these recent and active legal cases: In Leon County, Florida, the Goldwater Institute is representing a family suing the school board for secretly facilitating their daughter's gender transition. According to the complaint, school officials met with the girl to develop a "gender support plan" without ever informing her parents. When her mother eventually discovered the deception, she was shocked to learn that school staff had systematically excluded her from major decisions about her child's identity and well-being. In Ludlow, Massachusetts, parents are likewise suing their school district for secretly encouraging and supporting their children's gender transitions. Emails revealed that school officials were advising students on how to socially transition—changing names and pronouns—while explicitly instructing staff not to inform the parents. When one concerned parent reached out to the school for clarification, she was misled regarding the full extent of the school's actions. The story is similar in Skaneateles, New York, where the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty has filed a brief challenging a court decision that effectively allows school staff to keep parents in the dark when it comes to gender identity transitions. That case, though originating in another state, has national implications, as it may set legal precedent for whether schools can legally withhold this type of information from parents. In Spreckels Union School District, California, the district settled a lawsuit with a mother who sued after learning that the school had supported her daughter's social transition to a male identity, all without any parental notification. The school even advised the student not to tell her mother. After the story came to light, the child eventually chose to detransition and now identifies as female once again. The emotional damage was significant and entirely avoidable. And in Delaware Valley Regional High School, New Jersey, a father is suing the school district for interfering with his parental rights. School officials allegedly supported his child's transition and withheld critical information from him. Once again, the rationale behind this concealment was the assumption that school staff knew better than the child's own parent. Each of these cases underscores a dangerous trend: schools taking it upon themselves to guide children through life-altering identity decisions, while actively excluding the people who love and know these children best—their parents. This is not merely a cultural issue. It's a constitutional one. The Supreme Court has long upheld the rights of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their children. In Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Court affirmed that "the child is not the mere creature of the State." Yet in these cases, schools are acting as if they are. This principle of parental authority was recently reaffirmed in the Mahmoud v. Taylor Supreme Court decision. Advocates of these secretive school policies argue that not all homes are safe, and, in some cases, students fear parental rejection. But rather than treating all parents as potential threats, the appropriate course is to address specific concerns through social services when abuse is suspected, not to adopt blanket policies that usurp parental authority. The answer to a dysfunctional few is not the disempowerment of the many. The larger issue here is a growing ideological presumption in public education—that teachers and administrators are better equipped to guide children morally, psychologically, and even medically than their parents. That belief is not just arrogant; it is destructive. These are not minor issues of dress code or extracurricular participation. A child's gender identity involves deep philosophical, psychological and spiritual questions. It is not the role of public institutions to step into that realm without the full knowledge and involvement of families. When educators deliberately lie to parents or conceal critical information, they do not just breach trust—they undermine the foundational relationship between parent and child. America's parents must remain vigilant. These lawsuits reveal a national pattern, not isolated incidents. The well-being of children depends on strong families, not activist school bureaucracies. Our schools are supposed to be partners with parents, not adversaries working behind closed doors. It is time to say clearly and without apology: schools must not facilitate the social or medical transition of any child without parental consent. Doing so is not compassion—it is coercion. And it must stop.
Axios
10 hours ago
- Axios
Senate Dems preserve shutdown leverage over Trump, GOP
Top Democrats supported the first appropriations bill of the summer Tuesday night, but they aren't taking a government shutdown off the table in October. Why it matters: The procedural vote on the MilCon-VA bill was 90-8. But those numbers are slightly deceiving. They don't capture the Democrats' frustration over rescissions — and fear and misgivings about the appropriations process to come. What they're saying: "There's the CR issues, and then there's today's issues," Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told Axios. "I would just separate those for now."' "It's just a motion to proceed, and we look forward to the amendment process," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said. "We're making these decisions vote by vote as is our responsibility to do," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told Axios. Driving the news: In the end, only seven Democrats voted against moving forward with the funding bill. That gave leaders the space to make the distinction between supporting normal appropriations bills and a continuing resolution they will almost certainly confront in September. "It was done in a bipartisan process, no doubt about it," Schumer said. "It undoes many of the awful DOGE cuts to veterans." And the vote on Tuesday only opened debate on the bill, which Democrats haven't committed to supporting in the end. What to watch: Schumer was expected to huddle Tuesday night with top Senate and House Democrats, including House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), to discuss government funding. Zoom out: Democrats are divided on how much to help Republicans fund the government — and when and where to fight them on the principles that animate their party. Some progressive senators are vowing to withhold their votes on spending bills unless they receive ironclad assurances that Republicans won't pursue any more rescissions packages. "Why would anyone trust the Republicans at this point?" Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told Axios. Zoom in: Some GOP appropriators seem sympathetic to the Democratic complaints about the role rescissions can play in the appropriations process. Democrats have a "valid concern" about making spending deals just to be undone through rescissions, Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) said last week. The bottom line: Senate Democrats don't have to decide in July whether they want to risk shutting down the government in October.
Axios
11 hours ago
- Axios
U.S. Olympic committee bans trans women from competing in women's sports
The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee has updated its policies to ban transgender women from competing in women's sports, in line with President Trump's executive order. The big picture: Trump's push to end protections for transgender people, including thebanning of trans athletes from women's sports, has left transgender and nonbinary people across the U.S. navigating an upended sports landscape. Zoom in: The committee's rule change is evident in a 27-page "Athlete Safety Policy" posted on its website Monday, which refers to Trump's executive order while omitting the use of the word "transgender." "The USOPC is committed to protecting opportunities for athletes participating in sport," the document reads. The committee will continue to collaborate with various stakeholders "to ensure that women have a fair and safe competition environment consistent with Executive Order 14201," it says. The committee did not immediately respond to Axios' request for comment. Between the lines: The new policy indicates that the national governing bodies of sports federations in the U.S. must now follow the committee's lead, the New York Times reports.
