Op Ed: No on Proposition K
We don’t need another empty promise.
Photo by John Guccione www.advergroup.com on Pexels.com
Buckle up! SFMTA has big plans to close many roads. SFMTA is on a tear: closing roads, sowing animosity among neighbors, and destroying business corridors throughout San Francisco. Far more people require cars than bikes, but SFMTA is determined to control you. Their Bike & Roll plan, which conveniently won’t be voted on until after the election, would close hundreds of miles of roads in San Francisco — is this really what we want? A city designed to optimize around people who want to play rather than around the productive members of society who need to get their kids to school, to get to work, to run errands, to get their equipment to job sites, to get to the Veterans Hospital?
“Park? What park?”: There’s no park in Proposition K. Zip. Nada. They talk about it, but there’s no actual park promised — just a road closure. All those beautiful drawings are dishonest marketing propaganda. It’s like ordering a pizza and only getting the box.
Road must remain a road for emergency vehicles. This isn’t turning into a magical greenspace with flowers, winding paths and rolling fields. It will always be a road … just a closed one.
Traffic chaos for everyone!: Closing the road will push 20,000 cars through residential streets like a Mario Kart course — except there’s no blue shell to save you. It’ll make neighborhoods more dangerous, polluted, and annoying for everyone who doesn’t love dodging cars.
No money, no park: San Francisco’s broke. Proposition K doesn’t come with park money. If we had money for parks, shouldn’t it go where people actually need one? Instead, we’re being selfish with our 88,000 acres of existing parks. It’s like adding another pool to a mansion when your neighbors don’t even have a kiddie pool.
“Cost savings” — the fine print: They say this will save money, but only if we turn the road into a sandy wasteland. If we get that mythical park, we’ll need to spend a fortune clearing the beach off the benches and swings. So, the “savings” claim is about as real as Bigfoot. The claimed “cost saving” from the controller’s office is only relevant if the road is abandoned. If the road is going to be used for recreation, there will be no cost savings. The controller said they would not speculate on use, so this cost savings only applies if there is no park and we let the road become part of the beach (so no biking either).
Compromise? What’s that?: There was a compromise that worked — close the road on weekends, keep it open for traffic during the week. But nope, let’s throw that out and annoy everyone, just because a few people didn’t get what they wanted. It’s like changing the rules in the middle of a board game — except in this case, the prize is your sanity.
Three arteries, and we’re closing one?: Imagine being at a concert with 200,000 people and someone says, “Let’s close one-third of the exits.” Sounds smart, right? Well, that’s what happens when we close this road, one of only three major routes in this part of town. And with construction on 19th Avenue coming up, it’ll be like playing “Where’s Waldo” with open streets.
Coldest, foggiest spot in San Francisco: This area has weather so cold and windy that even seagulls refuse to show up. Yet we’re closing a road for the few people brave enough to bike through the fog? It’s like hosting a pool party during a blizzard — sure, a few people might turn up, but is it worth it?
Marie Hurabiell is the executive director and founder of Connected SF.
Originally published on The Voice of San Francisco on October 24, 2024 by Marie Hurabiell