Prop. G, to return cars to Great Highway, will remain on the ballot, judge rules

The proposition to reopen the Great Highway to cars will stay on the ballot despite a legal challenge to remove it, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled on Friday morning. 

The lawsuit, filed in June by the park advocacy group Friends of Sunset Dunes, challenged the legality of a signature-gathering petition circulated by park opponents, arguing that the petition contained “objectively false and/or misleading statements.” The petition gathered over 15,000 signatures and Prop. G qualified for the ballot in late July.

Judge Harold E. Kahn denied the park advocates’ petition and ruled that “the allegedly false statements are not false beyond dispute.” 

It was a win for the Great Highway for Everyone campaign, which is working to convince citywide voters — not just those in the Westside — to give up a coastal park and reopen the Upper Great Highway to cars five days a week. 

“We won the right to be on the ballot,” said Jamie Hughes, the campaign spokesperson of Great Highway for Everyone. Had Friends of Sunset Dunes won, Hughes added, “it would’ve set a dangerous precedent where, if you have more money, you can pay expensive lawyers and take something off the ballot that voters put on themselves.” 

Friends of Sunset Dunes disputed seven claims in the Great Highway for Everyone campaign’s petition. For one, the petition stated that “the roadway surface remains suitable for dual use,” but park advocates argued that park amenities on Sunset Dunes, such as a skate park, prevented it from being readily used as a roadway. 

The judge disagreed. “It seemed to me that ‘remains suitable’ is subject to varying interpretations and understandings here,” Kahn said. 

Another argument from the park advocates attacked the claim that the Upper Great Highway closure “eliminated a critical coastal evacuation route” during a natural disaster. 

They argued that the statement is false and that the Upper Great Highway is not a critical evacuation route, based on a letter from the Department of Emergency Management stating that the Upper Great Highway “is not a designated evacuation route and closing it to private vehicles will not change our existing emergency response protocols.” 

“The word ‘critical’ does have some aspect of opinion to it,” said Kahn,“and potentially even hyperbole.” Still, he added, though “this does sound like political talk, perhaps an overstatement,” it wasn’t enough justification to yank a qualified measure off the ballot.

It comes down to, the judge said, “do they meet this incredibly high standard of ‘false’ on an objectively verifiable standard and beyond dispute, based on clear and convincing evidence?”  

None of the allegedly false or misleading claims cited by Friends of Sunset Dunes pass that “objectively verifiable test,” Kahn ruled. 

A voter initiative is an exercise in democracy, Kahn added. If doubt exists as to whether the statements used to gather signatures for Prop. G are true or false, “it’s the voters, not the court, that make the call. And there’s some doubt here.”  

“I recognize I could be wrong,” Kahn continued. “I want to give the opportunity to the aggrieved party today to seek appellate review.” The park advocates said they will consider filing an appeal. 

If they do so, there will be two lawsuits at the San Francisco Appellate Court regarding the Upper Great Highway. A group of anti-park organizers appealed earlier this year to overturn a judge’s January decision that denied the arguments to overturn Prop. K, which created the park.  

“Our focus is very clear,” said Lucas Lux, the president of Friends of Sunset Dunes. “It’s to take the campaign to voters and make sure the voters understand the truth of the measure.”