Political / Social

[Mike Ball]

My research focuses on political and social aspects surrounding the
280/101 interchange, as well as the highway system of California and
the USA.

Excerpts from history of I-280
UC Berkeley Environmental Justice Department Report

The I-280 was originally conceived of as part of the Trafficways Plan
adopted by the City Planning Commission in 1951.1 Intended to resolve
traffic congestion on city streets, the Trafficways Plan proposed nine
freeways that would be constructed in a 49-square mile area of San
Francisco. Following the construction of the Bayshore Freeway, the
remainder of the Trafficways Plan met intense opposition from city
residents, who fought to protect the aesthetics of San Francisco from
the construction of more “unsightly” freeways that would leave “visual
scars” across the city.2 The “Freeway Revolt” continued through the
1950s and early 1960s, successfully convincing the Board of
Supervisors to withdraw its support from six of the nine proposed
freeways, and contributing to the eventual demolition of the
Embarcadero Freeway that began in 1991. While some freeway
construction has been seen in San Francisco, such as that of the
1-280, public sentiment has remained widely committed to protecting
the beauty of the city at the cost of increased traffic congestion on
surface streets.

Although the I-280 represents one of the few freeways successfully
constructed in San Francisco, its planning and approval was not
without significant opposition from affected communities. Throughout
1956, San Francisco’s print media highlighted massive public
objections to the construction of the freeway through the Mission and
Excelsior Districts. Three public hearings were held in total to
discuss the freeway segment to be built in the Excelsior, occurring on
31 January 1956, 3 March 1956, and 6 April 1956. Opposition was voiced
primarily from those homeowners whose land would be purchased to make
way for the freeway. The city planned to purchase 603 homes, claiming
that it would pay fair market value for the homes.

In the public hearings, city officials faced harsh criticism from
community members, who argued that the freeway was unnecessary and
would displace people who neither wanted to leave nor had anywhere
else to go. At the first meeting, held on 31 January 1956 at Balboa
High School, George P. Tomasello, of 77 Badger Street, declared,
“You’re taking our homes…to build freeways for people to come into the
city—and these people are living down in the Peninsula by choice!”4
Such arguments that the freeway would benefit outsiders instead of
local residents coupled with homeowners’ protest against being forced
out of their homes: “We are being forced to move…to inconvenience
ourselves…You’re going to chase us out of San Francisco!”

The headline for an Examiner article on 7 April 1956 portrays the
magnitude of community protest at the third meeting: “S.F. Freeway
Route Blasted at Hearing.” Once the meeting was opened to public
statements, the “peppery comments came thick and fast,” as
demonstrated by Rosalie Ayala, of 482 Trumbull Avenue: “I bought my
home to die in. Now they want me to get out…You gotta get a bulldozer
to throw me out.”7 By the conclusion of the third meeting, at which
the city estimated that the freeway would be completed in four years,
no print evidence suggests that homeowners had had their concerns
alleviated by city officials.

While our research exposed significant protest of the freeway from
Excelsior residents, the key question remains: Why was community
opposition unsuccessful in preventing the Southern Freeway from being
built through the Excelsior? One possible explanation rests in the
property value of the area. At the third public meeting, City Works
Director Sherman P. Duckel explained, “The route chosen is the most
economical and the cheapest property will be taken.”13 Unfortunately,
residents of the Excelsior were targeted because their property
represented the cheapest and therefore most appealing route for city
planners. Land acquisition based on pure financial efficiency
highlights a common injustice in land-use planning—the
disproportionate displacement of low-income families simply because
their property is the easiest to acquire.

While the cost of land undoubtedly contributed to the final decision
to route the I-280 through the Excelsior District, we cannot conclude
that it was the only, or even primary factor influencing city
planners. Of the estimated $33,000,000 of the project’s budget, only
$2,000,000 was reserved for the necessary property purchases.14 Land
acquisition therefore represented only about 6 percent of the entire
freeway cost, making it appear doubtful that minor differences in land
cost could have led to this community being disproportionately
affected by the freeway. It seems that decision makers focused on the
Excelsior because of a pre-existing traffic crisis on Alemany
Boulevard, as stated numerous times by city officials in the three
public meetings.