By Lisa Awbrey, HANC Board
On September 16, 2025, in a special election in his home district, D4 Supervisor Joel Engardio was recalled. By a landslide. This was the first election since a rightward political shift at City Hall and just nine months into new Mayor Daniel Lurie’s term.
Engardio was the driving force behind the controversial Proposition K, a citywide measure that permanently closed the Great Highway to vehicle traffic to create a park. In 2022, the 3 time loser barely won his district election after a dubious redistricting process and after centering his campaign on the two recalls of then DA Chesa Boudin and members of the SFUSD school board. Today Engardio is a casualty of the recall machine he helped build, one that incited voters to remove electeds not for misconduct, but for policy differences. So here we are.
Last November‘s citywide election brought a new pro-corporate majority to City Hall, encompassing the offices of the Mayor, a new majority on the Board of Supervisors, the District Attorney, the SFUSD school board and the SFDCCC. The tech and real estate industries spent millions funding and promoting many of the winning candidates.
And although current members of the SF Planning Commission are appointed by two of the branches of local government (4 by the Mayor, and 3 by the Board of Supervisors), recent votes at the Commission reveal a pattern of acquiescence by the commissioners to the new mayor’s pro density development plans, in spite of majority public comments in opposition; this was starkly evident at a recent 10 hour SF Planning Commission hearing on Lurie’s controversial citywide upzoning legislation, dubiously named the “Family Zoning Plan.”
Lurie and the newly elected office holders are currently focused on running San Francisco more like a corporation than a democratic and policy making body. Using words like “efficiency” “streamlining“ “common sense“ “abundance“ “vibrant“ “clean and safe“ to describe their actions while they diminish public access, reduce citizen oversight and slash funding for public and community services. With the termination of remote public comment at government hearings, members of the public can no longer call in, but instead must attend in person (in the middle of the work day) important hearings where impactful quality of life decisions are made.
In this current climate, supervisors aren’t holding public town halls but instead host scripted and engineered presentations where electeds present to the public, who are encouraged to register, presubmit their questions in writing or speak one on one with city officials and not in an open public format where participants can listen to and learn from each other.
"Dismantling independent oversight agencies. . ."
Another stark example of Lurie’s diminishing citizen oversight and accountability of city departments was his decision to remove Max Carter Oberstone from the Police Commission. Strangely, Lurie never once met with Carter- Oberstone before ousting him. At the Board of Supervisors’ hearing and before the final vote on his removal, Carter-Oberstone commented “Dismantling independent oversight agencies in the name of “streamlining”and “efficiency” is certainly in vogue these days. I’m sure many in Washington would applaud Daniel Lurie’s coarse political desire for more executive power, but I know that San Francisco stands for something different, and I imagine many of you do, too.” More than 50 people spoke at the podium in support of Carter-Oberstone during more than 90 minutes of public comment, and only three advocated for the motion to remove him.
During the heated lead up to Engardio’s recall, Lurie was mum and did not take a position. On election night with a clear blowout supporting Engardio's ouster, Lurie issued the statement: “As I campaigned for mayor last year, I heard countless Westside families say what San Franciscans have been feeling for years: That their government is doing things to them, not with them, and that government is not working to make their lives better.”
In light of Engardio’s trouncing and the national and local political climate, Mayor Lurie and the supervisors should take note: neighborhoods feel unheard. Recall supporters emphasized the feeling that decisions were being made “to them, not with them.” Engardio’s ouster is widely seen as a protest against top down governance that disregards the will of a specific neighborhood or district, regardless of the citywide outcome. Engardio’s successful recall sends a clear message to all City officials: ignoring the specific wishes of your constituents, even if you are aligned with citywide sentiment, can be a political liability. Going forward, building consensus with the public and partnering with us to make policy is the antidote to recalls.