The Great Highway controversy won't Die

And it shouldn't. San Francisco needs to look in the mirror

Back in 2000, San Francisco went to district elections for local leaders.

Eleven districts were drawn up and each elected a representative — a supervisor — to support their issues.

Frankly, there are times when it’s been a bit of a mixed bag.

Always fretting about gentrification, in 2015, the Mission District floated a scheme called the “Mission Moratorium,” which proposed a complete moratorium on any new construction in the district for at least 18 months and maybe indefinitely.

It was NIMBY-ism on steroids. Even SF’s chief economist weighed in to say what a bad idea it was.

It didn’t pass. But like we said, district representation can get pretty narrow and specific.

However, in this case we have the opposite.

We’re talking about Prop K, the proposal to close two miles of the Great Highway to automobile traffic.

To the hilarity of those beyond the Bay, this has turned into a raging controversy. Another one of those viral oh-that-San-Francisco stories.

Even the New York Times noticed. Former Chronicle columnist Heather Knight weighed in with a nice NYT piece about Prop K, with the breathless headline, “San Franciscans are ‘Fighting for Their Lives’ Over One Great Highway.” Some people were in tears, she wrote.

But, you say, the election is over. Prop K won with 55 percent. The people have spoken. The road will be closed.

And that’s true.

Except . . .

First, the issue is not going away. In fact, a case could be made it is picking up speed.

The constituents of District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio are breaking out the pitchforks and torches.

Reason being, as Will Clark used to say, Engardio chose — in a decision I’ll bet he wishes he’d taken another 20 minutes to consider — to support closing Great Highway. Engardio did that, despite the fact that he knew in his district — which includes the road — it was not popular.

When K passed, Engardio’s voters were not happy. A recall drive is underway, and although recalls are tough to pull off, good luck in the 2026 election, Mr. Supervisor.

So there’s that.

But it is also worthwhile to consider the idea of Great Highway Park, which is how Yes on K folks were selling the closure. Once the road is shut down, they told us, it will a seaside park.

And that’s the second point.

The neighborhood doesn’t want it.

Really, really doesn’t want it.

We knew there was opposition to the idea before the election. But after it, we have data.

Take a look at this map from the excellent Mission Local. Purple is No on K, green is yes.

It doesn’t get much clearer than that. And the darker purple means they voted emphatically no.

However, across town, over in Dogpatch or up in North Beach, voters apparently thought, “A park? That sounds nice. I’d vote for that.”

Call me cynical, but I don’t see a family in Mission Bay loading up the old SUV and driving the 6-7 miles across town to ride bikes on a two-mile stretch of empty road.

The neighborhood was offered a park. They didn’t want it. That should be end of story.

Now, there are lots of reasons I think closing the Great Highway is a bad idea. And we will get to those.

But at the risk of going all over-reaching pundit, I think there’s something bigger here.

This speaks to San Francisco’s tendency to tell people, “We know what’s good for you, just step back and let us do it.” This, as the city strives to once-again thrive, is not the time for that.

The Valencia Street bike lanes are a dandy example. They’ve run the lanes down the side, up the middle and behind cars on Valencia. It’s been a mess.

At one point last April, a frustrated business owner, claiming as many as 20 businesses had folded in the bike lane confusion, actually went on a hunger strike to protest the lack of accountability from the Municipal Transportation Agency.

And, not to go full way-over-reaching-pundit, I think it is more than San Francisco. I think we have seen some of that nationally, with liberals, progressives and, frankly, Democrats.

Are we really hearing what the voters are saying? Or are we telling them what we’re going to do anyhow, and promising they’ll like it.

An approach like that could lose a White House.

Now, about those reasons why it is a bad idea:

There’s no park: Supporters can say what they want, but closing the road only creates two lanes of asphalt, stretching for two miles. They may put some park benches out, but you’re looking at a flat road between sand dunes with narey a tree.

There’s no money to create a park either. There is a grant of $1 million, but the waterside park at Chase Arena cost $32 million. And with Mayor-elect Daniel Lurie facing a budget deficit at over $800 million and counting, don’t expect city funding.

It is also, without question, the coldest, foggiest, breeziest location in San Francisco. Let’s see how many bikes there are on a January afternoon when the wind blows sand in your face.

There are good reasons to keep the road open: Full disclosure, this is not the first time I’ve climbed on this hobbyhorse. Here’s a column I wrote back in 2022. In it, I mention that in the survey by the city, prior to COVID some 17,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day used the Great Highway corridor, including the section to be closed.

The Great Highway is well traveled and used consistently by locals.

There was already a fine compromise in place: The highway was closed during COVID, but re-opened in 2021 with a change. People had enjoyed strolling along a car-free road at times, so an idea was hatched.

The road would be open during the week and then closed on the weekend to allow recreation.

It was perfect. The only problem was, the agreement was set to expire this year.

So local politicos had a choice. They could leave the plan as it was, allowing both commuting AND recreation.

Or, they could go to the ballot box with something much, much better.

Picture it! A new park. A shutdown of the pollution-creating highway. And a way to force people out of their cars and onto public transit.

The only problem?

The people who were most invested didn’t want that. And it pissed them off to be lectured by their “representatives.”

You can take that analogy as far as you want. But I’d venture it goes all the way up to the top in current politics.

Yogi Berra said “You can observe a lot by watching.”

It’s something our leaders should take to heart.

More watching. Less lecturing.

Contact C.W. Nevius at cwnevius@gmail.com. X and Threads: @cwnevius