
People love the new Great Highway park. Do they love it enough to spare Supervisor Joel Engardio?
Being able to take a snooze in a beachfront hammock on a sunny afternoon has made all the turmoil over closing the Upper Great Highway to create Sunset Dunes, San Francisco's newest park, worth it.
At least it did for Fred Reynolds, who lives nearby, when I spoke to him on a recent Saturday.
'I thought it worked very well during COVID,' Reynolds said of the pandemic closure of the roadway. 'So, it seems like a natural progression. I think it's turning out to be a great asset for the city.'
Now the question is if Reynolds' neighbors feel similarly enough about the park and its new amenities to extinguish their political furor.
While San Francisco voted to pass Prop K in November, closing the Great Highway to cars, Sunset residents overwhelmingly opposed the measure — and responded to its passage by revolting against their supervisor, Joel Engardio, who championed the roadway's closure.
The campaign to recall Engardio said it had enough petition signatures from District 4 residents by Thursday's deadline to submit to the San Francisco Elections Department for a ballot measure. If the signatures are certified, the department must hold a recall election 105 to 120 days afterward.
There's also a lawsuit seeking to reopen the Great Highway and the possibility of a ballot measure to reverse Prop K. The recall campaign also opened another front in the city's moderate-progressive political war.
Meanwhile, Sunset Dunes park, the source of all this acrimony, opened officially to great fanfare on April 12.
Politics aside, it's still doing well.
Sunset Dunes is still largely a four-lane road. There's new murals, paintings on the asphalt, sculptures and some added amenities, such as hammocks and tree trunks repurposed into seating.
That's enough for Sunset Dunes to become the third most-visited park in the city during the week, averaging 3,400 visitors a day, and fourth overall on weekends, averaging 7,800 visitors a day, according to the Recreation and Park Department.
'I've been coming out on the weekends pretty much, but I want to start coming out at night every day just for exercise, too,' Sunset resident Osmond Li said after trying out a piano set up for visitors.
So far, 62% of the visitors to Sunset Dunes are from San Francisco, and 35% of them are from the adjacent Sunset, Parkside and West Portal neighborhoods, according to the Recreation and Park Department's sensors that can track cell phone registrations.
A 'honeymoon' surge to a new park is normal, but 'weekday consistency suggests lasting success. Our numbers there have been higher than expected,' said Tamara Barak Aparton, a spokesperson for the Recreation and Park Department.
Is all that foot traffic translating into more sales for area businesses? It's probably too early for anything conclusive, but I checked with a couple of businesses I talked to just after the November election.
Andytown Coffee Roasters co-owner Lauren Crabbe said her count of foot traffic at her Outer Sunset shops is up 20% over last year, compared to 5% at her Richmond District location.
'There's obviously something going on there beyond just the weather if we're seeing one neighborhood performing better than the other,' Crabbe said.
At Aqua Surf Shop in the Sunset, store manager Dagan Ministero, who opposed Prop K, said he hasn't had an influx of customers since the park opened.
'I don't know if it's just the nation overall, but business is kind of down these days,' Ministero said. 'I haven't seen an increase.'
Traffic congestion was one of the chief concerns for Ministero and many opposed to closing the Great Highway. Traffic is at or below pre-pandemic levels on the lower Great Highway adjacent to the park and nearby 46th Avenue, according to monitors set up by the group Friends of Sunset Dunes.
However, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency is collecting more comprehensive data on the area's traffic conditions that it expects to release this summer, according to Parisa Safarzadeh, a spokesperson for the agency.
'We do anticipate that with every road change there is an adjustment period,' Safarzadeh said, noting that new traffic patterns and potential problems become clearer after drivers settle into routines.
To help traffic flow, there are new stoplights at Lincoln Way and 41st Avenue, and at Sloat and Skyline boulevards. Sunset Boulevard, the closest major north-south route, has been repaved. Speed bumps were added to some streets near the Great Highway to discourage cut-through traffic.
Safarzadeh said traffic data will be evaluated to determine if further changes are needed. 'It's too early to even understand what that would look like.'
Drivers accustomed to using the closed 2-mile stretch of the Upper Great Highway from Lincoln Way to Sloat Boulevard will bear the brunt of these changes. Anecdotal evidence suggests commutes could be longer and not everybody is happy.
Ministero said he's witnessed several fender benders in the area that he attributed to an uptick in traffic and that better infrastructure changes should have been in place before the closure.
'I feel like it was kind of putting the cart before the horse,' Ministero said.
Despite his opposition to the Great Highway's closure, Ministero, who lives in the Richmond, said he loves the new public space and surfs the area almost daily, despite the 'problematic' traffic.
Sunset voters who felt betrayed by Engardio now appear to have a chance at retribution by recalling him.
Or can the new park win them over before Election Day? Either way, the park will remain.
We can throw Engardio out and relitigate this at the polls and the courts. But to what end?
Engardio has a vested interest in making sure Sunset Dunes is a success, so ousting him could jeopardize that.
No doubt, commuters will be inconvenienced. I live in the Sunset, and I'll be one of them, too, when I drive. We should make sure the city upholds its responsibility to make traffic improvements.
Because in the end, Sunset Dunes could become a great city asset, and that's what we should all want.
Harry Mok is an assistant editor, editorial board member and columnist for the Opinion section.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
What is Zoom bombing? Ontario bans public attendance from virtual courtrooms citing rise in intrusions
An increase in cyber harassment and hijacking of court proceedings, known as 'Zoom bombing,' has prompted Ontario to ban the public from attending virtually. A memo was sent last Wednesday by the province's assistant deputy attorney general Katie Wood to court staff across Ontario saying the public will no longer be permitted to observe court proceedings virtually, according to a CBC report . 'If the public would like to attend, they will be required to do so in person,' the memo said, according to that reporting. This, according to the CBC report, was prompted by a spike in 'Zoom bombing incidents' that saw virtual intruders display 'offensive content and targeted behaviour' that interrupted proceedings. The province's justice landscape underwent a drastic transformation in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to courts switching to remote hearings using meeting platforms like Zoom. Despite the convenience, the move to online proceedings has raised concerns about increasing incidents of Zoom bombing. The report indicates the ban is in effect for the Ontario Court of Justice. Zoom bombing is the act of disrupting online meetings that have been shared publicly. It involves internet trolls crashing Zoom meetings with displays of pornographic or hate images and threatening language, according to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). In Ontario, virtual court proceedings and local government meetings have been derailed by participants who unmute themselves to make offensive comments or hijack screens to display disturbing images and words. A 2024 memo from Tribunals Ontario said disruptions during an event or proceeding 'which could include lewd or obscene behaviour such as shouting, screaming or making threats, broadcasting sexually explicit sounds, images, or videos' may lead the Tribunals Ontario adjudicators or staff to ban the intruder from rejoining and further actions if the disruption is perceived as a threat. Only the host or co-host can remove people from a meeting. To do this, the host can use the participant list within the meeting interface. Tap 'more' or the three dots next to the participant's name in the participant list to see additional actions. Then select remove, and confirm the removal when prompted. After reports of an increase in Zoom bombing from the University of Toronto community, U of T issued a list of best practices to protect against this type of disruption including: Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .


San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘We're not leaving': In-N-Out responds to rumors about California exit
In-N-Out Burger is staying put in California, despite CEO Lynsi Snyder's personal decision to relocate her family to Tennessee, the company said Tuesday. The popular fast food chain reaffirmed that its corporate headquarters will remain in the state, following a wave of speculation sparked by CEO Lynsi Snyder's announcement that she and her family are relocating to Tennessee. 'We're not moving In-N-Out Burger's corporate headquarters,' read a joint statement from Snyder and the company. 'We're not leaving California, or leaving our roots behind. Each one of our locations is here to stay.' The move to Tennessee, the company said, is part of a previously announced expansion that includes opening an 'Eastern Territory' office in Franklin, Tenn., by 2026. Snyder will reside there with her family, but the majority of the company's operations will remain in California. In-N-Out is consolidating its West Coast offices in Baldwin Park — home to the original 1948 location — and phasing out its Irvine office by 2030, a year later than initially planned. California Gov. Gavin Newsom's office also pushed back against the rumors. 'For those interested in the facts, rather than fiction, In-N-Out is expanding East — creating a second HQ in Tennessee,' the office posted on X. 'In-N-Out continues to expand in California — adding more locations in the Golden State this year than any other state.' Speculation about the company's future in California intensified after Snyder appeared on conservative pundit Allie Beth Stuckey's 'Relatable' podcast last week, where she aired personal frustrations about life and business in the state. 'There's a lot of great things about California, but raising a family is not easy here,' Snyder said. 'Doing business is not easy here.' She also referenced a COVID-era clash with San Francisco officials, when one location was temporarily shut down for refusing to enforce vaccine mandates. 'We're not policing our customers,' Synder said. 'I'm very proud of where In-N-Out started,' she wrote. 'Anyone who knows me knows how often I talk about our beginnings and how our Customers here in California helped bring us to where we are today.'


Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
NPR loses. The First Amendment wins.
It is a tiresome myth that the media are supposed to be unbiased. The First Amendment, which prohibits governments from 'abridging the freedom … of the press,' was crafted in part because the framers of the Constitution knew perfectly well that journalists cannot help bringing strong views to their work, that those views shape their coverage, and that it is no business of the government to decide what constitutes fair and accurate reporting. No — the reason to defund public broadcasting is that it should never have been funded in the first place. A government barred by the Constitution from 'abridging' the media ought never to have involved itself in subsidizing the media. Congress's vote to cut the flow of dollars from the Treasury to NPR and PBS was long overdue. As Walter Donway wrote in The Daily Economy, the rescission vote 'strips away the illusion, cherished since the late 1960s, that in a free country with a free press, government can somehow act as a neutral arbiter of public information.' Advertisement Yet right up to the last minute, the CEO of NPR, Katherine Maher, kept trying to save her network's federal funding by insisting that 'we are, of course, a nonpartisan organization' and promising to iron the bias out of its journalism. 'As far as the accusations that we're biased, I would stand up and say, 'Please show me a story that concerns you because we want to know,'' she said during a Wednesday appearance on CNN. I'll be happy to take Maher up on that request but her plea misses the point. NPR cannot be unbiased. And even if it could, that wouldn't entitle it to taxpayer dollars. That NPR leans left is not the problem. What is a problem is that its journalism has repeatedly fallen short of its own professed standards of accuracy, fairness, and intellectual honesty. Take, for example, NPR's handling of the story about Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop in the weeks before the 2020 presidential election. The network flatly refused to cover the revelations emerging from the laptop, Yet the laptop and its contents were Advertisement Or consider NPR's In reality, the photographs at the center of the story were egregiously misconstrued. An investigation by the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that no migrants had been struck. But NPR, like other outlets, did little to correct the record or to grapple with how avidly it ran with an inflammatory and unfounded accusation. On issues of race and the COVID-19 pandemic, NPR's record has often been problematic. It dedicated Advertisement When it came to COVID's origins, NPR leaned heavily into the narrative that the virus emerged from a wet market. The possibility that it might have escaped from a Wuhan lab engaged in gain-of-function research was almost 'immediately dismissed as racist or a right-wing conspiracy theory,' Berliner wrote. Indeed, NPR went so far as to even declare in April 2020 that the As late as 2023, when even the Biden administration was inclined to accept the lab-leak hypothesis, NPR was still These and Advertisement Just as — to be fair — every other media outlet does. Which brings me back to the key point: Even if NPR hadn't dropped the ball on these stories, even if its reporting were as careful, accurate, and objective as is humanly possible, it still would not warrant a nickel of government money. Freedom of the press means that government must not tell journalists what to say or punish them for saying the wrong thing. It also means that news organizations must make their own way in the marketplace of ideas, sustained by their audiences, their advertisers, or their benefactors — not by the public treasury. NPR has always described its work as indispensable. With the government out of the picture, it can finally prove its value in the only arena that truly matters: the free marketplace of ideas. If it can sharpen its journalism, confront its own biases, and earn the loyalty of more listeners willing to pay for it, so much the better — for NPR and for the nation. A free press thrives when it stands on its own feet, not on the public dole. This article is adapted from the current , Jeff Jacoby's weekly newsletter. To subscribe to Arguable, visit . Jeff Jacoby can be reached at