A private group is running a public street like it’s theirs

For nearly 2 years, the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association (HVNA) has operated a parallel approval system governing access to a public street.

This isn’t about events or programming. It’s about who controls access to a public street.

A de facto gatekeeping and sublicensing system in which third parties are directed to apply for access to Hayes Street through HVNA’s own private form, under HVNA-defined conditions and HVNA-defined “approval,” rather than through the City’s permitting process. At the same time, the form disclaims liability and pushes responsibility onto volunteers and the public. That’s not a vibe issue. It’s a public right-of-way issue.

The City already has a formal, citywide permitting process for events and street use, which all other neighborhoods follow. This parallel, privately administered system in Hayes Valley is highly unusual.

What the HVNA form actually does

Based on HVNA’s own “community use” application and terms:

• Requires third parties to apply through HVNA to use Hayes Street
• Sets specific days/times of use (example: Friday evenings and Saturdays)
• Requires volunteers to manage barricades
• Disclaims liability (“use at your own risk”)
• States HVNA is not liable for injuries, damages, or losses
• Pushes permitting obligations onto others (food/alcohol/vendors/etc.)
• Shifts cleanup and restoration obligations onto the applicant/public

In plain English: HVNA is acting as the administrator of access to a public street, while disclaiming responsibility for what happens there.

The accountability gap this creates

This is the core problem:

• The City issues the permit
• HVNA controls who uses the space and under what conditions
• HVNA disclaims liability and pushes operational responsibility outward

That’s a structural accountability gap, exactly where things go wrong in public space: safety, noise, emergency access, vendor activity, alcohol, cleanup, damage, and enforcement.

This structure raises unavoidable questions:

1. Who is authorized to control access to public right-of-way and to “approve” third-party use?
2. Who is responsible for safety and compliance during third-party activations?
3. Is the Shared Spaces / promenade permit being used beyond its approved scope?
4. If something goes wrong, who is accountable and who is insured?

This was flagged and never addressed

This arrangement was raised to SFMTA. It stayed live on the Hayes Promenade website. And it was never publicly resolved. That should concern everyone, regardless of where they stand on the closure itself.

Because even if you love a car-free block, you should not want a system where:

• A private organization becomes the arbiter of who gets access
• The City effectively allows a shadow permitting layer
• Responsibility gets scattered across “volunteers,” applicants, and the general public

That’s not stewardship. That’s delegated control without clear accountability.

Why this matters beyond Hayes Valley

If this is allowed here, it becomes a blueprint:

• A permit-holder group sets up a private intake form
• Decides who gets access
• Disclaims liability
• Pushes operations onto volunteers and third parties
• City agencies look the other way

That is not how public streets are supposed to work — in any neighborhood.

What the City must clarify

What the City through SFMTA must clarify:

• Authority: Whether permit holders may control or approve third-party access to public right-of-way
• Responsibility: Who is legally and operationally responsible for safety, access, and compliance during third-party use
• Liability: How risk, insurance, enforcement, and accountability are assigned when third parties use the space

Absent clear answers, the City has effectively delegated control of a public street without accountability.

Bottom line

What HVNA is doing is not simply “holding a permit and hosting events.”

They are operating as a de facto event gatekeeper and sublicensor of public right-of-way, while disclaiming liability and shifting responsibilities onto others.

The City permits HVNA. HVNA permits everyone else.
That inversion should concern anyone who cares about how public space is governed in San Francisco.