logo
Organizer of Supervisor Joel Engardio recall resigns days before deadline

Organizer of Supervisor Joel Engardio recall resigns days before deadline

One of the lead organizers behind the campaign to recall Supervisor Joel Engardio resigned Tuesday, only days before a signature-gathering deadline.
Vin Budhai said he was stepping down from the recall effort due to 'ongoing creative and strategic differences regarding the direction and execution of the effort.'
Budhai was one of the public faces behind the opposition to Proposition K last fall, which passed, creating the Sunset Dunes Park and permanently closing the Great Highway.
'My commitment to holding Supervisor Engardio accountable remains unchanged,' Budhai said in a statement. 'I continue to believe that a recall is warranted and necessary for the future of our community.'
The recall effort kicked off in February against Engardio for his support of Prop K, which passed with more than 54% of the vote across San Francisco, but was opposed by the majority of residents in the Sunset and Richmond districts, which are closest to the new park.
The 2-mile stretch of the Great Highway was closed to cars on March 14 and the new park — named Sunset Dunes following a namingcontest that included numerous anti-Engardio entries — opened on April 12, when thousands flocked to the oceanside stretch to celebrate the new park.
Budhai's resignation comes only nine days before the May 22 deadline for the recall campaign to submit 10,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot. Budhai previously declined to share how many signatures the campaign had collected.
'I wish the committee and all those involved in the campaign continued success as they carry this effort forward,' Budhai said in a statement.
Other west side residents have been pushing voters to 'Stand with Joel.' Engardio has also received high-profile support from Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman, who donated $25,000 to the supervisor's cause. Some opponents of the recall have cited the cost of a recall election which they say wastes taxpayer money, and the fact that Engardio is up for reelection in November 2026 as reasons for their opposition.
'Not every Sunset resident is going to agree with me on every issue, but I'm committed to working with residents on issues that make the Sunset a great place to live,' Engardio previously said in response to the recall effort. 'I respect that people are going to disagree on how to use our coast. It's humbling to see a majority of my district opposing the ballot measure, so that's why I'm working so hard to address the core issues people had about the ballot measure.
Sunset Dunes Park has also seen obstacles in court, a lawsuit filed alleges the closure of the Great Highway as unlawful. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include LivableSF, a nonprofit started by Budhai; Sunset hardware store owner Albert Chow; former District 7 supervisor candidate Matt Borschetto, and Outer Sunset resident Lisa Arjes.
The issue of the park could also be sent back to voters if the recall campaign qualifies for the ballot. In her April 5 column in the Richmond Review and Sunset Beacon, Supervisor Connie Chan wrote that the recall would present an opportunity to send a ballot measure to voters to reopen the highway to cars.
But Chan would need six supervisors to make the election citywide, as only District 4 residents would be able to vote on an Engardio recall. She'd further need three more supervisors' signatures for the potential measure to reopen the highway to be placed on the ballot.
Board President Rafael Mandelman said at the time that he does not see the need to revisit the issue of the Upper Great Highway.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Turnout for July 26 Families First protests against Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' and Medicaid cuts expected in all 50 states: What to know
Turnout for July 26 Families First protests against Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' and Medicaid cuts expected in all 50 states: What to know

Fast Company

time13 minutes ago

  • Fast Company

Turnout for July 26 Families First protests against Trump's ‘big beautiful bill' and Medicaid cuts expected in all 50 states: What to know

On Saturday, July 26, tens of thousands of people, including large numbers of families, are expected to join Families First protests and rallies against the Trump administration's policies. Those policies range from reversals of environmental protections to the newly passed 'big beautiful bill,' with its massive cuts to Medicaid, to the White House's immigration policy, which has led to raids and arrests carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) across the country. Here's what to know. What's happening? Thousands of parents, grandparents, immigrants, caregivers, children, and religious leaders are planning to gather in peaceful demonstrations in all 50 states, with major events scheduled in Washington, D.C.; Tucson, Arizona; and Chicago. 'At a time when too many families are already struggling to afford what they need, these cuts will take away families' healthcare coverage, food, and essential care, and some families have already had loved ones disappeared by ICE,' Ai-jen Poo, executive director of Caring Across Generations, told Fast Company. 'Our families come first, and we'll continue showing up for one another.' What to expect According to organizers, Families First is a nationwide day of action with family-friendly rallies, youth art-making fairs, teach-ins, canned-food drives, and community events to raise awareness about the need for healthcare, safety, food, education, and climate action to protect children and families in the United States. Like many of the recent anti-Trump protests, Families First is expected to include people from all walks of life and parts of the country. As previously reported, protestors have included struggling middle-class families with young children; retirees worried about cuts to Social Security and Medicaid; teachers in schools where funding has been pulled and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are under attack; and recently laid-off government workers targeted by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Washington Post, NY Times columns insist Colbert cancelation is due to obsolete format, not politics
Washington Post, NY Times columns insist Colbert cancelation is due to obsolete format, not politics

Fox News

timean hour ago

  • Fox News

Washington Post, NY Times columns insist Colbert cancelation is due to obsolete format, not politics

A pair of liberal media columns published this week dismissed the theory that the pending cancellation of "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" is due to politics, arguing it's due to the decline of late-night programs and TV in general. A New York Times guest essay by Puck Media founding partner William Cohan and a column by The Washington Post's Megan McArdle insisted that Colbert's show was losing viewers and money due to people moving away from traditional TV — stating that's the "primary" reason for the cancellation. "That, and not Colbert's politics, is the primary thing you should be thinking about when you ask why the show was canceled. The great unbundling of the old networks and cable packages meant that late-night shows were no longer a hot media property but an economic liability," McArdle wrote on Wednesday. In his Tuesday piece, Cohan said, "I suspect Mr. Colbert's demise had more to do with the increasingly challenging economics of traditional late-night television than it did with bending the knee, yet again, to the Trump administration." The two opinions run contrary to those of Colbert defenders who have speculated that the late-night host's show is on the chopping block thanks to the liberal and anti-Trump content he puts into his show. CBS announced last Thursday that it would cancel "The Late Show" next May at the end of its broadcast season. The network clarified that the cancellation was "purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night," and noted, "It is not related in any way to the show's performance, content or other matters happening at Paramount." The news comes weeks after CBS and Paramount paid President Donald Trump a $16 million settlement following his lawsuit against the news network for airing an edited interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris ahead of the 2024 election. Puck News journalist Matt Belloni reported last week that the show "has been losing more than $40 million a year." McArdle corroborated the network's reason for canceling Colbert. She wrote that "The Late Show's" ratings "declined from 3.1 million viewers in the 2017-2018 season to 1.9 million last year, with only a couple hundred thousand viewers in the critical 18-49 segment that advertisers covet. Advertising dollars similarly fell by about 40 percent, driving the show to a reported $40 million loss." She continued, noting that the network would have been reluctant to cut Colbert's program if it was generating prestige and buzz. "But it would have been much harder to cancel a show that was making the network lots of money — or at least generating prestige and buzz. By the time CBS pulled the plug, late-night shows were no longer even doing that." Cohan argued that cutting Colbert was clearly a way for CBS's parent company, Paramount Global, to cut costs, as it has expressed it would do. "Last year, the company aimed to cut costs by $500 million and said it would reduce its work force by 15 percent, or by 2,000 employees," he wrote. "Just last month, it announced a work force reduction of an additional 3.5 percent. Mr. Colbert surely wouldn't have been outside the blast zone of these cuts, especially considering the show's losses." He continued, "While Mr. Colbert may still be No. 1 in late-night, many of us are not watching him on CBS at 11:35 at night. We're busy sleeping, or glued to TikTok or X or YouTube or whatever. The numbers prove that reality — the ratings for late-night shows across the board are way down in recent years." Cohan predicted the same fate will befall the other major network late night hosts.. "You can be sure that what happened to Mr. Colbert is a harbinger of what's to come for Jimmy Fallon, Jimmy Kimmel and Seth Meyers, I'm sorry to say." CBS did not immediately reply to Fox News Digital's request for comment.

Hong Kong issues arrest warrants for 19 overseas activists, offers bounties for 15
Hong Kong issues arrest warrants for 19 overseas activists, offers bounties for 15

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Hong Kong issues arrest warrants for 19 overseas activists, offers bounties for 15

By Jessie Pang HONG KONG (Reuters) -Hong Kong's national security police announced arrest warrants for 19 activists based overseas, accusing them of subversion under a stringent national security law, marking the largest such tally yet. They are accused of organizing or participating in the "Hong Kong Parliament", a group authorities in the Asian financial hub say aimed to subvert state power, under the law Beijing imposed in 2020 following months of pro-democracy protests in 2019. The activists are accused of having launched a referendum or run as candidates in the unofficial "Hong Kong Parliament" group, which authorities say aims at achieving self-determination and drafting a "Hong Kong constitution". Police, who said the organisation sought to overthrow the governments of China and Hong Kong by unlawful means, said they are still investigating and further arrests may follow. Among those named are businessman Elmer Yuen, commentator Victor Ho, and activists Johnny Fok and Tony Choi. Four of them are subject to previous arrest warrants, each carrying a bounty of HK$1 million ($127,000). Among the remaining 15, for each of whom police are offering a bounty of HK$200,000 ($25,480), are those said to have organised or run in the election and sworn in as its councillors. None of the accused could be reached for comment. The former British colony returned to Chinese rule in 1997 with the guarantee of a high degree of autonomy, including freedom of speech, under a "one country, two systems" formula. Critics of the national security law say authorities are using it to stifle dissent. Chinese and Hong Kong officials have repeatedly said the law was vital to restore stability after the city was rocked for months by sometimes violent anti-government and anti-China protests in 2019. Police reiterated that national security offenses were serious crimes with extraterritorial reach and urged the wanted individuals to return to Hong Kong and surrender. "If offenders voluntarily give up continuing to violate the crime, turn themselves in, truthfully confess their crimes, or provide key information that helps solve other cases, they may be eligible for reduced punishment," they said in a statement. Police also warned that aiding, abetting, or funding others to participate in the "Hong Kong Parliament" could be a criminal offense. ($1=7.8488 Hong Kong dollars)

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store