The war over the Great Highway is tearing the Sunset apart

Sebraleaves comments on article by Han Li, in the sfstandard

Are photos of the parking lot are being used to claim the EXTENSION is eroding? The above photos show the difference between the two. The extension is elevated and raises up beween the ocean and the sewer plant. It leads away from the ocean.

As a debate over whether to close a portion of the roadway leads to literal fights, a key question remains: If it’s eroding into the ocean, does it even matter?…(more)

Editor Comments: Well, yes. It matters to all the folks in the sunset who have the crosstown traffic pouring through their neighborhoods. It matters to the thousands of people who must get from the north side of town to the south part of town and the many commuters who are caught up in local traffic mire created to remove cars from their rightful place. It certainly matters to the people who are giving up on San Francisco and leaving the city for less inhospitable lifestyles.

Highways and crosstown streets, sometime referred to as arterials, were designed for fast paced traffic. In San Francisco where we eliminated the cross town freeways prevalent in most cities, we need what we have left to function. San Francisco cannot keep people from Marin County and San Mateo from crossing on our city streets, anymore than Marin can keep us from driving north up 101 or San Mateo can cut us from driving south on Route One. That appears that the goal of some people is to keep people out of San Francisco by cutting easy access. The want to close the highway a force traffic to take routes that wind through residential neighborhoods.

This is the line we are getting from local media re: Upper Great Highway closures. “The southern part of the road connecting to Daly City is set to fully close to cars in the near future because of erosion, and the northern part in the Richmond will remain open”

There is some question as to whether or not claims that “it is a done deal” are accurate. Questions arise from the language included in Proposition K that will allow voters to decide whether to end pilot project prematurely, and close a section of the highway permanently to cars. The excuses given are that the city needs a new park and cars need to be removed first to start the plan for a park. There are isssues with the manner in which the ballot proposal got to the ballot and how the whole matter is being presented but, we are only going to concentrate on a single question.

Is closure of the Great Highway Extension a done deal? If it is why is it included in Proposition K as part of the ballot initiative?

In order to understand this one needs to do a bit of investigating so we have included a couple of links. Link to the ballot initiative language. Upon reading you will see that the original pilot project language was modified to create the ballot initiative, the old language is struck out but you can see it. We looked at the amendments to the pilot as our guide. Here is the Link to section 3 amendments: re: RESTRICTING VEHICLES ON THE GREAT HIGHWAY EXTENSION

The extension closure appears to be a trojan horse in the Prop K ballot initiative. There may be more. Keep looking. This has not been discussed by the Yes on K campaign, but, it appears to transfer the responsibility for the permanent clousre of THE GREAT HIGHWAY EXTENSION from the SF Board of Supervisors by amending a Finding in the pilot Project. The amendment appears to put the permanet clousre of the THE GREAT HIGHWAY EXTENSION in the hands of the People of the City and County of San Francisco, when they vote on removal of all the cars permanenetly from the Great Highway.

How many voters know what a Finding is or have seen any documents proving the highway is eroding? Can one legitimately agree to sign onto the results of a study that one has no knowledge of? Or should the voters be expected to trust the words of this SF City Hall Family that has proven to be less than forthcoming and honest.

When did we agree to allow the government that is supposed to serve our needs, to remove the personal and civil rights citizens have live with for decades or in some cases centuries? Why is San Francisco government so keen to replace the freedom-loving liberal “do whatever you like” spirit with a radical “do what I tell you” authoritarianism?