Furor Over Central Freeway
Supervisors add ballot initiative to tear down freeway
By Perla Ni

The supporters of the Central Freeway, who collected 22,000 signatures to qualify their measure for the November election, are infuriated by the last-minute addition of an initiative to tear down the freeway, sponsored by Supervisors Tom Ammiano, Sue Bierman, Leslie Katz and Mark Leno.

“They should respect the will of the people,” said Port Commissioner Pius Lee. “If you want an initiative, go through the regular procedure and get the signatures.”

The supervisors were able to add their initiative to the ballot under a city election law that allows an initiative to be put on the ballot with at least four sponsoring supervisors. But while it is procedurally permissible, the four supervisors are being criticized for using their powers specifically for the purpose of challenging a grassroots campaign.

Sponsors of the supervisors’ initiative, on the other hand, contend that their initiative only re-iterates what voters said last year. “I believe in the mandate of Prop E. I’m just being consistent,” said Ammiano.

Damaged by the earthquake in 1989, the Central Freeway has garnered more than it’s share of attention at the ballot boxes. Last year, voters approved Prop. E, a proposal to replace the freeway with a street-level boulevard through Octavia Street, reversing the 1996 decision by voters to rebuild the Central Freeway as a four-lane, single-deck structure extending over Market Street from Mission to Oak and Fell streets.

ALLEGATIONS OF ARROGANCE
In addition to the criticism that exercising the supervisors’ legislative authority to de-rail a citizen’s initiative was inappropriate, the fact that the supervisors’ initiative was put together behind closed doors and signed by all four supervisors on the last date of filings has raised allegations that they intended to circumvent the public process.

“The leader of the Sunshine Ordinance effort, Tom Ammiano, snuck into the department of elections with 26 minutes to spare with stealth legislation that no one other than a small cadre of supervisors had seen,” said Paul Kozakiewicz, publisher of Richmond Review and Sunset Beacon. “There were no public hearings, no public meetings nothing. Legally, it’s probably OK, but it violates the spirit of the law.”

Not one of the supervisors sponsoring the initiative approached the Save the Freeway Committee to discuss the issue, said Pius Lee. “I was surprised [by the supervisors’ initiative],” he said. “Nobody know what going on, otherwise we can do some lobbying. I just learned about it yesterday.”

Supervisor Ammiano responded by saying, “These things take time to conceive and write.”

SIDE BY SIDE ON THE BALLOT
With two initiatives on the ballot about the Central Freeway,the proponents of the freeway worry voters will be confused. “It creates some confusion to the community. We have to do a lot of explanation to the community,” said Lee.

The supervisors say that it’s about time more than one solution to the Central Freeway was offered on the same ballot. “It’s good that both initiatives are on the ballot,” said Supervisor Leno. “In 1996, there was Prop. H ... in 1998, there was Prop. E ... this time, with both alternatives on he ballot, it will give the people a real choice.”

In addition to solving the traffic question, the boulevard initiative will free up space for affordable housing development in Hayes Valley Neighborhood, say the supervisors

“It would be great if we could use some of this land to build housing for seniors or working families,” Ammiano said.

Looking just beyond the traffic implications, Leno said, shows the real picture and opportunities that may be passed up if the freeway is allowed to stand. “It draws out the picture better because a freeway will have consequences on the neighborhood. Blight prevents the land from being used productively,” he said.

The promise of using the land for housing development, however, is dismissed by Julie Lee of the San Francisco Neighbors Association as a smoke screen. “These are two different issues, the freeway and housing,” she said.

Bill Wong, a pharmacist at Republic Drugs in Chinatown, agrees that voters have been and remain perplexed by the contradictory information put out by the competing camps. “I don’t know if I agree with either initiative,” shrugged Wong. “There’s so much smoke, I don’t know the real facts and implications”

The supervisors’ plans calls for replacing the Central Freeway with a street-level boulevard along Octavia street. Supervisor Ammiano praised the boulevard proposal as “among the most beautiful streetscape projects this generation will give to future San Franciscans.”

Supporters of the boulevard plan say the design promises to create an urban thoroughfare that would be consistent with San Francisco’s neighborhoods. “This work is just beautiful,” said Supervisor Bierman of the boulevard design. “We’re freeing this whole neighborhood from a blighting influence and the pall cast by an overhead concrete structure.”

But critics argue that a pretty boulevard won’t be deal with the high traffic in and out of the city. “In a city of this size, with the state of the MUNI, can we afford to lose another artery of this city?” said Julie Lee, one of the organizers of the Save the Central Freeway Committee. “The freeway may not be beautiful, but it’s necessary.”

Moveover, supporters of the Rebuild Central Freeway Committee scorned the designs for the Octavia Boulevard, unveiled last month. “I’m sure it’s pretty,” Lee said, “and it will double or triple the real estate values in that neighborhood, but so many will suffer and be inconvenienced.”

“We need to keep the freeway for the sake of the community,” said Pius Lee. “When there was a freeway, to Chinatown it took 10 minutes. Once the freeway is torn down, going to Third Street takes half an hour.”

Supervisor Leland Yee said he’s not convinced “the Octavia Boulevard would move traffic as quickly and cheaply as its proponents argue.”

He added: “Common sense would suggest if [there are] 92,000 cars on [the] freeway and you dump it on city streets, that’s going to create madness.”

Both critics and supporters of the freeway say safety is another issue. The surface boulevard, said Supervisor Katz -- even with a single deck freeway instead of the original double deck -- will be safer than an above-ground freeway.

“We can’t risk a patched-up 1950s concrete freeway anymore,” she said. “Where would you rather be driving if another earthquake hit -- safely on the ground or 50 feet in the air?”

But those who support the freeway say earthquake safety concerns pale in comparison to pedestrian safety that would be jeopardized by a surface street design. “Pedestrian safety is very important,” Julie Lee said. “There are lots of pedestrian accidents on a surface level.”

“When you put more cars on the street, you create more danger,” agreed Supervisor Yee. “That’s why we’ve had such a rash of pedestrian deaths. If you can separate automobiles from pedestrians, that’s better [safety wise].”

The supporters of the Central Freeway are confident that their grass-roots support will ensure victory at the polls in November. “We got most signatures among all the initiatives,” said Julie Lee. “We have strong membership, volunteers, block captains and more Asians registered to vote.”

Both campaigns will be making most of their time between now and November elections to make voter contact. “We will be putting out mailing pieces, getting endorsements,” said Lee. Meanwhile, environmental and traffic studies are due to be completed by fall before the Octavia Boulevard design goes to a final vote before the Board of Supervisors.