Let’s take a closer look at the Controller’s Statement on Prop K — Removing cars from the Great Highway. There is no Park.

By Outer Richmond reader- C. Z.

Many Prop K supporters claim the Controller’s statement as proof that closing the Great Highway is the cheaper option…but you might not agree if you read carefully. Here we go…

“The cost of the proposed ordinance, should it be approved by the voters, is dependent on decisions that the Mayor and Board of Supervisors make through the budget process, as an ordinance cannot bind future Mayors and Boards of Supervisors to provide funding for this or any other purpose”

There is no funding tied to this ordinance, so any improvements will have to be approved by the BOS. There is no guarantee that a park will ever exist, or any improvements will ever be made. Or, it could be very expensive and other city projects that should be prioritized might be shelved in favor of building this park.

“Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would likely reduce the cost of government by up to approximately $1.5 million in one-time capital project cost savings and by approximately $350,000 to $700,000 annually in maintenance and operational cost savings.”

The controller is stating their opinion, which is valid, but it still is an opinion of one person that relies on many assumptions. Also, it would likely reduce indicates that it also might not. It is not a definitive statement.

“The proposed ordinance would amend the Park Code to prohibit all private vehicles on the Upper Great Highway between Lincoln Way and Sloat Boulevard. If the proposed ordinance is approved, annual operational cost savings could range from approximately $350,000 to approximately $700,000 annually for reductions in sand removal, roadway maintenance, and operating costs, which may be partially reduced by additional costs to inspect and maintain physical infrastructure.” Note the wording: cost savings could range from….the cost savings will depend on how often they have to remove sand and maintain the road. So if they want to brag about how much money they’re saving, it’s only because they are not maintaining the road.

Also note this statement ends with caveat — these “savings” may be partially reduced by additional costs that the controller cannot estimate at this time. So these savings are also not definitive — the controller is actually stating that there are other costs not being taken into account!

“The proposed ordinance may result in increased trash pick-up, Park Ranger patrols or other operational costs subject to future operational decisions made by the Recreation and Parks Department, the cost of which may be reduced by the elimination of the need to open and close the Upper Great Highway.” Again, note the “may” language. Costs may increase due to more trash pick up and patrols, but money will be saved because no one will have to open and close the gate. There are no costs listed for either of these, but I would think the ~5 minutes it takes to open and close a gate 2x/week would be less than constant patrols and trash removal.

“For context, the Recreation and Parks Department granted approximately two permits per month to applicants for use of the Upper Great Highway for weekend events in Fiscal Year 2023. While the number of potential future events cannot be determined at this time, in general fees collected partially pay for staff time spent on the event.” So now they’re relying on events, that may not even happen, to generate funding? Are these mentioned as part of Prop K? No? Hmmmmmm….

“Additionally, the proposed ordinance would likely result in decreased capital project costs for funded transportation projects. The proposed ordinance would reduce the need to replace existing traffic signals on the Upper Great Highway, potentially resulting in up to approximately $4.3 million of savings”. As far as I know, there’s nothing wrong with the current signals. Of course, over time, they will need to be replaced, as all signals in the city will need to be replaced. Note the wording “potentially” and “approximately”. I doubt they’d ever be spending 4.3 million to replace all of the signals at once.

“While some of these capital projects may be necessary regardless of the proposed ordinance, these savings will likely be reduced by a range of approximately $860,000 in planning, design and traffic calming project costs to approximately $2.7 million in new capital project costs for traffic calming and additional signals to accommodate diverted traffic, resulting in approximately $1.5 million in net savings.” So here it is admitted that traffic calming projects and additional signals are needed which may be costly. Joel Engardio’s blog indicates he plans on adding at least 6 signals. Savings will be reduced anywhere from $860,000 to 2.7million! That’s a huge range. I think it’s pretty misleading to claim $1.5 million because it’s in the middle of the range. It’s just a guess.

“If future capital projects result from the closure, these savings would be further reduced, but at a level that cannot be determined at this time. Any additional future capital project or operational costs resulting from the closure would be subject to policy and funding decisions made by future Mayors and Boards of Supervisors and future operational decisions made by impacted departments.” And here it is….no guarantee for any future capital projects due to the closure. No guarantees for a park. No guarantees for solving traffic congestion closure creates. No realistic true estimates for cost savings because this ordinance has no action plan other than banning private cars from the roadway.

VOTE NO on PROP K!