How SFMTA Manipulated Sales Tax Data on Hayes Street

posted at 9am

A detailed analysis of how three separate blocks are being combined to hide the economic impact of the 400 block closure.

In reviewing SFMTA’s slide deck for the Hayes Street closure renewal, our team conducted a thorough analytical review of the sales tax data presented. Our team’s review identifies significant methodological flaws and a clear pattern of data manipulation that obscures the negative economic performance of the closed 400 block.

This page outlines those findings in full. They raise serious concerns about the integrity of SFMTA’s evaluation process for this closure renewal.

What SFMTA Presented

SFMTA displayed “sales tax trends for Hayes Street” by merging three separate blocks into a single aggregated dataset:

  • 300 block — open; previously closed during COVID and later reopened due to poor performance
  • 400 block — currently closed
  • 500 block — open; previously closed during COVID and later reopened due to poor performance

This aggregation created the appearance of a unified, healthy economic trend across the corridor.

Why This Is Misleading

1. The closed 400 block performs worse — but aggregation hides this.

Our analyst review shows:

  • The 500 block (open) has higher sales revenue than the 400 block (closed).
  • Combining the 300 and 500 blocks with the 400 block masks the closure’s negative economic impact.

This creates the illusion that the closure is economically harmless or even beneficial, when the opposite is true.

2. Proper methodology requires separating the blocks.

A legitimate evaluation would compare:

400 block (closed)
vs.
300 & 500 blocks (open)

This would reveal:

  • weaker retail performance
  • reduced customer access
  • slower recovery
  • lower sales tied to the closure

SFMTA avoided performing this basic, necessary comparison.

As our analyst notes:

“If they wanted an accurate picture, they would have separated the 400 block. Combining all three blocks is prejudicial.”

3. Grouping the blocks is statistically manipulative.

This is a textbook example of how to distort a dataset:

  • changing the sample
  • altering the comparison group
  • merging dissimilar conditions
  • washing out underperformance through aggregation

SFMTA chose the grouping that hid the economic harm.

4. SFMTA deviated from its own analytic standards.

In every other corridor analysis — including:

  • Slow Streets
  • Valencia center-running pilot
  • Parklets
  • Commercial recovery reports

SFMTA typically uses block-level or frontage-level analysis.

Hayes Street was the exception.
The only reason to deviate here was to avoid showing the impact on the closed block.

5. Including the 500 block was deceptive.

The 500 block:

  • was closed during COVID
  • was reopened because it performed poorly
  • is not part of the Shared Spaces permit
  • is not affected by the 400 block closure

Yet SFMTA:

  • used a COVID-era photo of the 500 block to imply history and continuity
  • included the 500 block’s stronger sales to inflate the aggregated metric

This manufactured the illusion of a “three-block promenade” that never existed.

6. It contradicts SFMTA’s own statements from 2023.

In 2023, SFMTA publicly said:

  • the data did not justify expansion
  • economic impact on the 400 block was unclear
  • better merchant sampling was required

Yet the new slide deck presents a fabricated “corridor-wide” trend to suggest broad stability.

7. The omission of a block-level comparison was intentional.

No competent analyst would accidentally merge three blocks with different conditions.

This choice:

  • avoided showing the 400 block’s downturn
  • avoided demonstrating economic harm
  • avoided revealing open blocks outperform the closed one
  • produced a rosy chart for the Board packet

As our analyst put it:

“If the 400 block is down and the 500 block is up, they are unrelated. Combining them only conceals the problem.”

8. The result: A misleading narrative that denies economic harm.

The aggregated chart allowed SFMTA to claim:

  • stable sales
  • healthy business performance
  • no negative impact from the closure

But this conclusion is only possible because the data is being blended to hide where the harm actually is.

Conclusion

SFMTA is blending sales tax data from three different blocks — two open, one closed — in a way that conceals the downturn on the closed 400 block. This method contradicts standard analytic practice, obscures the true economic impact of the Hayes Street closure, and is actively misleading both the public and the SFMTA Board in advance of a critical permit renewal decision.