Great Highway, Upzoning, and Public Safety dominate a high-stakes debate on San Francisco’s west side
By Malik Washington, Destination Freedom Media Group | The Davis Vanguard
On a fog-lined evening inside the United Irish Cultural Center, the political future of San Francisco’s west side unfolded before a packed room of Sunset District residents.
Five candidates seeking the District 4 seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors stepped to the microphone: Albert Chow, Natalie Gee, Jeremy Greco, David Lee, and incumbent Alan Wong, who was appointed to the position by Mayor Daniel Lurie.
Moderated by Sydney Johnson of KQED, the debate covered issues that now define life in the Sunset: affordability, public safety, transportation, and the city’s growing budget crisis.
But as the evening progressed, it became clear that three issues dominated the political terrain: the future of the Great Highway (now called Sunset Dunes), the city’s controversial upzoning ordinance, and the growing frustration over the absence of traffic enforcement in the district.
For longtime residents, the debate felt less like a routine election forum and more like a neighborhood reckoning.
As I looked around the room, I also noticed something else. In a district with a long history of diversity and migration, I appeared to be one of the only African Americans present at the debate—a quiet reminder of how dramatically San Francisco’s demographics have shifted over the past several decades.
Yet the issues discussed that evening—housing, transportation, and economic survival—affect every community that calls the city home.
The Candidates and Their Visions
Each candidate arrived with a different story about what the Sunset is—and what it should become.
Alan Wong, the appointed incumbent, framed himself as a pragmatic moderate. Raised in the Sunset and educated in the neighborhood’s public schools, Wong highlighted his service in the Army National Guard, his work advocating for childcare at the Children’s Council of San Francisco, and his time as a legislative aide in District 4.
Wong’s message centered on restoring public safety, simplifying city regulations, and protecting core services.
“I feel that I’m right in the Goldilocks zone,” Wong said. “Just right.”
Natalie Gee, a longtime City Hall staffer and former chief of staff in District 10, emphasized her experience navigating San Francisco’s complex government systems. Her campaign focused on protecting renters, expanding affordable housing, and strengthening emergency services.
David Lee, educator and former Recreation and Park commissioner, highlighted his history of civic engagement, including registering more than 100,000 voters through the Chinese American Voters Education Committee.
Lee’s platform stressed infrastructure investment, public safety, and breaking up monopolies such as PG&E and Recology, which he argues contribute to the city’s high cost of living.
Albert Chow, a Sunset merchant whose family has operated Great Wall Hardware for more than four decades, framed himself as the voice of small businesses and neighborhood families.
Jeremy Greco, a longtime renter and cooperative advocate, positioned his campaign as a working‑class alternative focused on housing cooperatives, land trusts, and economic democracy.
Five candidates. Five different political philosophies. One district searching for direction.
The Great Highway: Road or Park?
If there was a single issue that electrified the room, it was the ongoing battle over the Great Highway.
Once a coastal commuter route carrying thousands of vehicles daily, the roadway has increasingly been transformed into a pedestrian recreation space known as Sunset Dunes.
For supporters, it represents a rare public commons along San Francisco’s coastline. For critics, it represents a transportation decision forced on residents without sufficient consultation.
The candidates reflected that divide.
David Lee proposed a compromise: reopen the roadway to vehicles during weekdays while preserving the pedestrian park on weekends.
“Monday through Thursday, there aren’t many people there,” Lee said. “But come Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, it becomes a community space.”
Albert Chow also supported reopening the road but acknowledged the popularity of the recreational space. He suggested maintaining park amenities along the adjacent berm while restoring vehicle access during the week.
Chow argued that closing the roadway displaced approximately 17,000 daily vehicles, pushing traffic into residential streets.
“Those cars didn’t disappear,” he said. “They went somewhere.”
Natalie Gee approached the issue differently. She argued that the city rushed the decision, implementing major transportation changes without sufficient community engagement or traffic analysis.
Major infrastructure decisions normally take years of consultation, she noted. The Great Highway closure occurred in a matter of months.
Jeremy Greco offered the clearest answer of the night. For him, the debate is settled.
“It’s a park now,” Greco said.
After years of legal battles, ballot measures, and public use, Greco argued that dismantling Sunset Dunes would mean tearing down a space the community has already begun to embrace.
Supervisor Alan Wong acknowledged the intensity of the debate and the difficulty of representing a divided district.
“I don’t think anybody is necessarily right or wrong on this issue,” Wong said.
Upzoning and the Housing Crisis
Another flashpoint involved the city’s family zoning ordinance, which allows taller and denser housing development in parts of the Sunset.
The policy was designed to help San Francisco meet state housing mandates, but it has triggered concern among homeowners worried about neighborhood character.
Wong defended his support for the ordinance, arguing that the city needed to maintain local control rather than allowing the state to impose its own housing plan.
Jeremy Greco warned that zoning changes could leave thousands of renters vulnerable. He cited estimates that roughly 5,000 residents could lose housing protections as redevelopment pressures increase.
Greco proposed expanding community land trusts and cooperative housing models to prevent speculation and maintain long‑term affordability.
Natalie Gee focused on the need to build housing that working families can actually afford.
“People should not have to work two or three jobs just to survive here,” Gee said.
Albert Chow highlighted the staggering cost of homeownership in the district.
“Who can afford $1.5 to $2 million homes?” he asked.
The housing debate revealed a deeper question about the future of the Sunset. Should it remain a relatively low‑density neighborhood, or should it evolve to accommodate a growing city?
Streets Without Enforcement
If housing and coastal access represent long‑term challenges, traffic safety represents an immediate concern.
Residents repeatedly raised the issue of speeding, reckless driving, and the absence of visible law enforcement.
David Lee described living near 36th Avenue and Santiago Street, where he has witnessed dangerous driving behavior and nighttime street racing.
“Drivers are angry and frustrated,” Lee said. “There’s no deterrent.”
Lee renewed his proposal for a police substation in the Sunset to expand coverage and increase visible patrols.
Natalie Gee suggested expanding enforcement authority for SFMTA officers while improving transit access for seniors and residents far from major bus routes.
Jeremy Greco emphasized targeted enforcement at dangerous intersections.
Supervisor Wong acknowledged concerns about understaffing at Taraval Station and pledged to push for stronger police coverage.
Across ideological lines, the candidates agreed on one point: residents want safer streets.
A City in Transition
The District 4 debate reflected more than a local election. It reflected a city in transition.
San Francisco is grappling simultaneously with a housing crisis, rising costs of living, shifting transportation policies, and changing neighborhood identities.
The Sunset District—long known as one of the city’s most stable residential areas—now sits at the center of those tensions.
Inside the United Irish Cultural Center, the candidates offered competing visions of how to navigate that transformation.
Some emphasized compromise. Others argued for structural change. Still others focused on restoring what residents believe has been lost.
But one truth was clear: San Francisco’s future will not be decided in City Hall alone.
It will also be shaped in community rooms like this one—where neighbors gather, debate fiercely, and ultimately decide what kind of city they want to build together.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
“I looked around the room, I also noticed something else. In a district with a long history of diversity and migration, I appeared to be one of the only African Americans present at the debate—a quiet reminder of how dramatically San Francisco’s demographics have shifted over the past several decades.”
And then there’s this:
“On a fog-lined evening inside the United Irish Cultural Center, the political future of San Francisco’s west side unfolded before a packed room of Sunset District residents.
I remember when there actually were families of Irish descent in that neighborhood. Now, I believe it primarily consists of people of Asian descent. (Look at the names of the candidates, as well.)
Demographics change over time.
From what I can tell, most Asians are not progressives (and they also want the Great Highway re-opened to traffic). They are also more family-oriented as a whole, and welcome – rather than discourage – their adult children to continue living with them.
There was also a great deal of tension between the Asian community and black community in regard to admission standards at Lowell High School (in that same neighborhood), as well as the conflict with the black school board member who was recalled. (The one who said that Asians are using “white supremacy” to get ahead. Which, truth be told, they are – depending on how that’s defined.)
Or maybe it’s everyone else who is successful that is using “Asian supremacy” to get ahead.