The Hayes Street closure was supposed to be temporary. Instead, it’s become a politicized experiment with no accountability one that hurts small businesses, fuels division, and defies logic. Here’s why it’s time to reopen Hayes:
1. It was never meant to be permanent.
The closure began as a short-term pandemic response. Those conditions no longer exist.
2. Use of the space has dwindled (outside of events).
Outside of a handful of programmed events, the closure sees minimal foot traffic and very little organic activation. We’ve tracked each weekend closure since 2024 — turnout is consistently low, and momentum has faded. [ → see the log]
3. Small businesses are suffering.
Merchants report ongoing losses tied directly to the closure. Many have lost tens of thousands of dollars per month. Some have already left Hayes Valley — others are actively reconsidering whether they can stay.
4. There’s no other closure like this in SF.
This is the only business corridor in San Francisco with an indefinite “temporary” closure.
5. There is no clear permitting framework.
SFMTA has never defined a consistent or transparent process for how temporary street closures like this should be evaluated, renewed, or ended. There are no clear criteria, no timelines, and no meaningful public input mechanism … leaving the decision open to political influence instead of policy.
6. The closure largely bypassed ISCOTT —and the process lacks teeth.
For years, the Hayes Street closure was renewed without ever going before ISCOTT (the Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation). When it finally did in 2024, the hearing was perfunctory — ISCOTT merely checks boxes; it has no authority to adjudicate complaints, evaluate business impacts, or address neighborhood harm. This isn’t meaningful review, it’s rubber-stamping.
7. The closure is non-compliant week after week.
From parked vehicles to unauthorized vending, the closure regularly violates its own permit conditions. Yet enforcement remains nonexistent — and SFMTA continues to look the other way. [ → see the log]
8. The HVNA (permit holder) has been granted unchecked control.
One organization/the permit holder has full authority to run events, collect kickbacks, and dictate street use.
9. Event control bypasses standard protocols.
Instead of applying through the City’s event permitting process, HVNA uses its closure permit as a blank check.
10. Events often compete with local businesses.
Pop-up vendors with no leases or overhead are allowed in while brick-and-mortar shops struggle.
11. Outreach has been nonexistent.
Merchants and residents have been cut out of any meaningful decision-making or engagement.
12. PR campaigns are replacing public process.
The push to make Hayes “car-free forever” is being driven by branding and petitions, not policy.
13. A global petition is being misused.
A misleading, open-to-anyone petition has been weaponized as proof of local support.
14. The closure makes traffic worse.
Congestion, bottlenecks, and cut-throughs are now the norm. The closure blocks a key artery.
15. The Supervisor has shown bias.
Instead of balancing needs, he’s partnered with the permit holder to push a one-sided agenda.
16. Longtime merchants have been abandoned.
Many of Hayes Valley’s longest-running small businesses have been sidelined or ignored.
17. Even SFMTA leadership called out misinformation.
Then–SFMTA Director of Transportation Jeff Tumlin had privately acknowledged that then–Supervisor Dean Preston was advancing “a set of untrue messages” about the Hayes Street closure. That included the false claim that SFMTA had reversed its support for a permanent closure — when in fact, staff had recommended scaling the program back to one day due to mounting concerns. That professional recommendation was later dropped under political pressure. The quote reflected deep internal frustration over the distortion of facts and the erosion of public trust.
18. The permit holder is campaigning for permanence while violating the terms.
HVNA continues to advocate for making the closure permanent while simultaneously violating the basic terms of the temporary permit. Each Saturday, cars are parked on the block, unpermitted vendors set up, and emergency access remains a recurring concern. You can’t argue for permanence while refusing to comply with the rules. That’s not public planning it’s self-dealing.
19. Support is narrowly concentrated.
Support for the closure comes primarily from a handful of bars, restaurants, and food businesses on the 400 block, along with a couple of HVNA-aligned shops on Linden Street. Meanwhile, retailers, residents, and businesses beyond that stretch have largely been dismissed or ignored.
20. Merchants are afraid to speak up.
There’s a culture of retaliation and exclusion. Many businesses remain quiet out of fear.
21. The Market & Octavia Plan is being violated.
The Hayes Street closure contradicts the adopted policies of the Market & Octavia Area Plan, which was developed through a robust public process. The Plan calls for enhancing neighborhood connectivity, protecting commercial corridors, and supporting equitable public space planning. The closure undermines these goals by privileging one block and one stakeholder group without broad community consent or conformity review.
22. Merchants are potentially being pitted against each other.
The closure divides the corridor: bars and restaurants on the 400 block may benefit, while retailers, service businesses, and outer blocks lose visibility and foot traffic. What was once a collaborative small-business ecosystem now risks becoming fragmented with different sectors impacted in unequal and unfair ways.
23. Vendors are operating without regulation.
Pop-ups and tents regularly sell goods with no permits, business licenses, or taxes. It’s an unfair playing field for legal small businesses who pay rent and follow the rules.
24. The closure has damaged neighborhood cohesion.
Neighbors report increased tension, frustration, and distrust — not just over policy, but over how it was decided and who was included.
24. It’s an end-run around the planning process — enabled by SFMTA.
Rather than undergoing formal review through the Planning Department or adhering to the Market & Octavia Plan, the closure has been advanced through a patchwork of temporary SFMTA permits, political maneuvering, and public relations campaigns. There’s been no environmental review, no conformity analysis, and no legislative oversight. SFMTA has used its permit authority to push forward a permanent transformation of the corridor — without following the planning processes required for other major street changes across the city.
26. There’s a better event space next door.
Parcel K a city-owned plaza adjacent to Hayes sits largely unused. Why not use it? If the goal is community programming, music, food, or even chalk doodles, Parcel K is the place to do it –not the middle of a business corridor. It’s literally branded as a public gathering space. Why isn’t that the focus?
27. Hayes Valley is not short on open space.
From Koshland to Alamo Square, there are over 10 parks, plazas, and green spaces within walking distance.
28. Underused alleys offer better alternatives
The Planning Department has identified every alley in the Market Octavia neighborhood as potential “living zones,” – that’s a couple of dozen blocks on which slow streets and pedestrianized/non-car-centric outdoor areas could be developed. We should redirect our focus on these alleys. On any given day these alleys particularly Linden Alley between Octavia and Gough (which is directly behind Hayes St) is underutilized and could stand a makeover for better optimal social use.
29. The “promenade” branding is misleading and violates policy.
There is no formal promenade plan, no capital investment, and no adopted design. Just barricades, pop-up tents, and a PR campaign. Despite this, HVNA and supporters continue to market the space as the “Hayes Valley Promenade” even though advertising is prohibited under the closure permit. We’ve asked SFMTA to intervene. They haven’t. The City is allowing a misleading identity to be promoted on public infrastructure without oversight.
30. The program has no formal goals or metrics.
What does success look like? How are decisions made? There is no transparent evaluation framework.
31. Enforcement is arbitrary and political.
Some merchants are cited for signage or operations, while HVNA’s violations go ignored. That’s selective enforcement and it’s discriminatory.
32. HVNA is not a neutral actor.
The Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association functions more like a political club than a representative neighborhood body. It does not reflect the broad community yet continues to shape decisions and public messaging about the closure, often without transparency or accountability.
33. The permitting process lacks oversight.
SFMTA renews the closure with little review, no audit of compliance, and no formalized criteria for removal or modification.
34. Closure advocates keep moving the goalposts.
What started as a pandemic measure became “for open space,” then “for events,” then “for climate.” None of those arguments hold up under scrutiny.
35. It undermines faith in local government.
When the city ignores violations, sides with one group, and steamrolls neighborhood concerns people disengage. That’s dangerous for democracy.
36. There’s growing citywide backlash.
Other neighborhoods are watching. The Upper Great Highway closure — advanced without consensus, driven by ideology, and disruptive to residents — sparked deep political blowback and helped fuel the campaign to recall Supervisor Joel Engardio. Hayes Street is on a similar path: a unilateral closure, advanced without transparency, and harming small businesses. These efforts don’t just reshape streets — they reshape political futures. Supervisor Mahmood would be wise to take note.
37. Even merchants who once supported the closure have changed their minds.
Several early supporters have since pulled back, citing lack of benefits, increased chaos, or unfair treatment.
38. There was no real community process.
The closure has been extended repeatedly without broad-based outreach, inclusive engagement, or a representative forum for neighbors and small businesses to weigh in. Decisions have been made behind closed doors with a narrow circle of people — not through transparent, neighborhood-wide input.
39. There is no broad neighborhood consensus.
The process has relied almost entirely on HVNA insiders, sidelining diverse voices and perspectives. That’s not consensus that’s manufactured backing. The result? A neighborhood more divided than ever, with trust eroded beyond easy repair.
40. The street has become a private stage for HVNA’s brand.
Rather than a community hub, the street is now a curated environment promoting HVNA’s aesthetic, messaging, and events — with little room for other voices or independent identity. The so-called “community board” which sits on Parcel K is curated entirely by HVNA to push a permanent closure.
41. It creates traffic confusion
The closure has created confusion at both ends of the block, especially near Gough and Octavia. Sightlines are blocked, circulation is poorly managed, and double-parking scenarios are common. Meanwhile, there’s been a major uptick in skateboarder, bike, and scooter traffic — without any dedicated infrastructure or safety planning. To make matters worse, the street is routinely used as an unauthorized rideshare pickup/drop-off zone, further compounding congestion and violating the terms of the closure permit.
42. Nearby residential blocks bear the brunt.
Cut-through traffic, noise spillover, and lack of enforcement are now routine on adjacent streets like Ivy, Linden, and Page — neighborhoods that were never consulted.
43. The closure redirects foot traffic away from retail.
Rather than activating the neighborhood as a whole, the closure concentrates activity on the 400 block — often around pop-ups, DJs, and vendors who operate outside the storefront economy. As a result, adjacent blocks experience drop-offs in circulation, and independent retailers report fewer weekend customers. The closure is absorbing energy that used to be distributed across the corridor — without delivering shared benefit.
44. SFMTA ignored its own recommendations.
Internal reports from 2023 show that SFMTA staff recommended scaling the closure back to one day due to ongoing violations and lack of demonstrated public benefit. But after coordinated pressure from proponents working with the HVNA (the permit holder) and advocacy groups like the San Francisco Bicycle Coalition, those recommendations were quietly dropped. The agency reversed course — not based on data, but on politics.
45. Other Shared Spaces have been wound down — why not this one?
Across San Francisco, Shared Spaces have been scaled back or ended altogether in corridors where pandemic needs have subsided. What makes this block different? And why is it being treated as the exception to every rule?
46. The closure incentivizes event-style economics, not community resilience.
Hayes Street is being reshaped for pop-ups, DJs, and outside vendors — not for long-term stability, local retail, or neighborhood life.
47. The closure is losing legitimacy.
From misrepresented support to behind-the-scenes coordination, every step of this process erodes public trust. The longer it drags on, the clearer it becomes: this is not about community, it’s about control.
48. The community deserves better.
This isn’t how neighborhood planning should work. It’s time to reset — and reopen.