May 30, 2025
Dear Members of the Rules Committee,
We write to raise serious concerns about the legislative maneuvering underway to codify Hayes Street as part of a permanent “Entertainment Zone.” What is being framed as a citywide policy is, in practice, a means of entrenching a deeply contested weekend street closure that has harmed small businesses, lacked public process, and repeatedly violated basic standards of transparency and accountability.
You have all been included on the email thread with SFMTA, SFCTA, and Supervisor Mahmood, documenting our coalition’s sustained attempts to obtain timely, substantive responses to major policy questions. Rather than engaging, Supervisor Mahmood escalated tensions by falsely accusing our coalition of staff disparagement—a deflection that further erodes trust. We are not questioning personnel. We are questioning the integrity of the decision-making structure.
This proposal now appears poised to authorize an “Entertainment Zone” that includes Hayes Valley despite no hearing, no formal plan, and no local consensus. It is being routed through the Rules Committee, a venue designed for governance and structural review, not for an ordinance that materially impacts land use, transportation priorities, economic development, or planning funds.
Supervisor Mahmood publicly announced at a permitted street event last Friday that Hayes Valley would be designated as an Entertainment Zone. That plan has since been echoed in media coverage. Yet it appears nowhere on the Rules Committee agenda, no draft legislation has been shared, and no public comment opportunity has been provided. This is not oversight, it is deliberate exclusion. Advancing an amendment of that magnitude without notice is a flagrant violation of the Sunshine Ordinance.
This is not a study. It is legislative laundering. This framework is being used to re-legitimize a noncompliant Shared Spaces closure under a new cultural label. The terminology being deployed deliberately obscures the intent and outcome of the proposal. Calling it “just a study” or a “framework” is a tactic to fast-track a policy under the radar while evading scrutiny. The reality is this: Hayes Street is being used as a test case and prototype. Once designated, the street closure will be normalized, made permanent, and legitimized retroactively through ordinance.
This maneuver compounds, rather than resolves, the damage created by the existing setup. It extends and embeds a structure that has already been shown to be exclusionary, opaque, and fundamentally flawed. It redirects Octavia Special Fund dollars toward a corridor not even included in the 2023 SFCTA study at the expense of long-neglected safety and mobility projects elsewhere.
We demand that Hayes Valley be explicitly excluded from any Entertainment Zone designation, full stop. If the City insists on moving forward with a citywide program, it must include a formal opt-out mechanism—one that empowers neighborhoods like Hayes Valley, who were excluded from the planning process and have raised documented concerns, to decline participation through a local, resident-led process.
Let us be clear: the Shared Spaces permit for the 400 block has repeatedly failed to meet basic compliance standards, grounds for revocation under City policy. The fact that this permit hasn’t been revoked, and is now being quietly rebranded through legislation is a troubling example of policy failure masquerading as revitalization.
Hayes Street has suffered under a deeply flawed arrangement that has already caused substantial economic and civic damage. To now repackage that failure as an “entertainment benefit” without oversight, accountability, or consent is not only disingenuous, it’s dangerous.
There is no justification for designating this corridor as a destination for cultural activation when the street is barren during closures, local businesses are closing, and nearby open spaces like Parcel K and Linden Alley remain underused. The idea that Hayes Valley needs more programmed space while purpose-built sites sit idle is an inversion of planning priorities.
This is not about how to activate Hayes Street. This is about ending a failed and noncompliant closure—not embedding it permanently under a new name.
We respectfully request that the Committee not allow this corridor to be legislated by proxy. If this maneuver succeeds, it would send a dangerous message to every neighborhood in San Francisco—that local concerns, economic hardship, and procedural failure can be brushed aside by quiet amendments and insider negotiation. At a time when public trust in City Hall is already strained, this tactic has become a case study in how not to legislate. It is deeply disheartening to see an already divisive shutdown now wrapped in the language of cultural recovery…when in truth, it has caused business loss, community division, and a growing crisis of trust in our public institutions.
If advanced in this manner, this legislation would not only ignore the economic and civic harm already done—it would compound it. Please deny.
Sincerely,
HVSafe