Sunset Dunes: Representation, Risk, and the Politics of Public Space examines the transformation of San Francisco’s Great Highway from a coastal roadway into a public park. What began as a temporary closure evolved into a citywide debate over public space, transportation, climate adaptation, and democratic representation. As competing coalitions mobilized both for and against the closure, District 4 Supervisor Joel Engardio faced a difficult choice: whether to defer to the preferences of constituents in his district or pursue what he believed was in the broader public interest. After Engardio helped place Proposition K on the 2024 ballot, San Francisco voters approved the park despite strong opposition in the nearest neighborhood. The decision ultimately contributed to a successful recall campaign against him. Through multiple stakeholder perspectives, the case explores the tensions between local and citywide interests, process and outcomes, and political leadership and democratic accountability.
The case package includes four videos designed for pre-class viewing (total length 26 min.). Through the voices of two pro-park advocates, Engardio and Lucas Lux (President of Friends of Sunset Park) and two anti-park advocates, Josephine Zhao (President of the Chinese American Democratic Club) and Albert Chow (small business owner and president of a merchants’ association), the videos help students understand both sides of the debate more in depth and hear first-hand about their beliefs, frustrations, and sometimes irreconcilable perceptions of the role the Great Highway should play in the neighborhood’s life. It also explores a key theme of the case: whether an elected official should always closely represent the interests of their constituents or follow what they believe is the best course of action.
The case package also includes a one-minute optional video that can be played during class discussion about the impact of the road closure on traffic.
This case helps students analyze the challenges of democratic governance when policy, process, and public opinion come into conflict. It encourages students to examine how questions of procedural legitimacy influence public acceptance of policy outcomes and invites discussion about the political risks leaders face when pursuing consequential but controversial decisions. More broadly, the case asks students to consider what representation means in practice.
