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 garnered more than 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.”
Very well, watching Prop G lose by a wide margin will be entertaining enough. Here’s hoping our D-4 friends can then find a new cause célèbre that’s a little more dignified than stanning for an outdated slab of asphalt.
It’s not your concern over in the Bernal. You don’t live here, aren’t affected.
“No Information Added” is an appropriate name given you seem to have no info to contribute to the discussion. This IS the city’s business because it’s the people from every district in the city, not just the sore losers of D4, who will have to fork over the $10+ million to pay for a lovely park to be turned into a very expensive highway. If you don’t like the park, nobody is forcing to use it. Do you get that? Or is your alias “No Understanding Either”?
You and your SF transplants who stole the Great Highway are going down big time, both in Nov. and court.
Get ready for it!
Yeah! Transplants suck! Locals only! Build a wall and make something something pay for it!
You really think you are helping your cause with this noise?
@GreatHighwayCrusader – Ah yes, them there ding-danged tranzplantz is what done it. You know you’ve got nothing of substance when you have to resort to, “Yer not from aroun’ here. We don’t take kindly to strangers in these parts.”
whatever, we will vote it down again. the park is popular.
Yeah, we’ll show those working people who think they need a road!
Who needs a job? We don’t. We’re the DSA: Devoted Socialists with Affluence!
They’re not socialists though! They’re private Billionaire-backed yuppie techies riding a wave of dark money for gentrification and privatizing of the public commons. It’s the OPPOSITE of socialism.
I think that San Francisco’s constitution should be amended to require that an initiative regarding the Great Highway appear on the ballot every two years. Right now many city dwellers regard the irregular reappearance of this matter as an annoyance. But if a vote on some aspect of the highway were to appear on a scheduled biannual basis, we would come to experience bickering about the road as part of the background autoflow of city life: something between managing a chronic illness and tackling an interesting thought problem that comes up from time to time.
The amendment would require a commission to write the initiatives. They could be about anything regarding the highway: from speed bumps (assuming that the highway is open to cars) to skate parks (assuming that it isn’t). I vote to give the task to the city’s Entertainment Commission. Or, the commissioners could be appointed by the mayor. Or, if we are feeling truly adventurous, the commissioners could be voted into office by the voters.
The point is to get us past our “oh no, not this again” attitude regarding the Great Highway matter and back to a healthier “ok, whatever” perspective. Turning a frown if not exactly upside down, at least 45 degrees in a sunnier direction.
Brilliant! 😉
We could call it: “The San Francisco Narcissism of Small Differences Commission”!
This is a group of sf citizens, with real concerns, that did the work to get this measure on the ballot. It is clear what they want and their reasons are understandable, even if you disagree. I would urge folks who disagree to tone down the triumphant bullying and mocking here. Vote the way you like. Say why you think it’s a good/ bad idea. But, what i hear in these comments and on this issue is a mob that feels so confident in their victory, they can crush, and humiliate their opponents. If the measure had been orchestrated by non transparent orgs funded by shadowy groups with big dollars, that would be one thing. These are our neighbors, many of whom are uniquelly affected by this issue. Doesnt mean their right but i believe it means they deserve respect, especially from folks outside the neighborhood. I guess it feels good to be part of a big crowd coming down hard on a smaller, less powerful group. I am a little too old to remember that feeling from elementary school.
Very bizarre that the Friends of Sunset Dunes would resort to this tactic. Are they afraid they might lose in November or do they just have money and time to burn? Either way, it’s not a good look to sue to stifle opinions you don’t like (as per the judge’s comments). SF residents would be wise to carefully weigh all claims from all sides on this issue – and always follow the money. In SF Politics, the art of the cover story is taken to another level.
@Bill M – It’s not bizarre at all, it’s pretty routine. The petition states opinion as fact, which merited filing hte suit, and the judge recognized that but decided these claims didn’t meet an “incredibly high standard of ‘false.’”
I’ll note that when I encountered the people collecting signatures with this badly-worded petition, they had no compunction about spinning even wilder elaborate alarmist tales.
It’s not bizarre for them, they’ve been liars funded by Billionaires from the start.
They want residents of the west side to have zero voice in our own affairs.
It just makes sense to go with the compromise. Families have enough stress to deal with in life. The traffic congestion caused by closing Great Highway has added to that.
The Pro Park Clowns should be be forced pay fee to Yes on Prop G groups for attempting interfering in the election
Great Highway need open up to restore safer blocks and wipe out political toxicity that unsafely closed Great Highway to become a called Park.