The Backstory — Why These Rules Exist
San Francisco’s City Charter isn’t vague about this: Supervisors make laws, they don’t administer them. That line was drawn for a reason — and it goes back to incidents like Aaron Peskin’s notorious late-night calls to department heads. Those drunken phone calls and attempts to direct agency staff triggered reforms clarifying that supervisors cannot interfere with operational decisions.
The Preston Precedent — Turning a Street Closure into a Political Campaign
In 2023, Supervisor Dean Preston took issue with SFMTA’s decision not to renew a pandemic-era street closure in his district. Rather than allowing the department’s process to run its course, he launched a full-scale media campaign to pressure SFMTA into reversing its position and coordinating coverage that portrayed the agency as abandoning the community. It was an unmistakable case of political interference in what should have been an administrative determination.
SFMTA Director Jeffrey Tumlin was later forced to publicly correct the record, saying Preston was “leading with untruths.” But by then, the pressure campaign had done its work: it politicized a temporary street-use decision and undermined public confidence in the agency’s ability to act independently. That moment revealed how easily a single Supervisor could turn a street closure — meant to be reviewed on data, safety, and policy — into a test of political loyalty.
The Pattern Repeats — Hayes Street and the Return of Political Overreach
Fast forward to today. Supervisor Bilal Mahmood has followed a strikingly similar playbook around the Hayes Street closure — privately coordinating with city departments, select organizations, and favored business groups to influence policy outcomes. What began as a “temporary” pandemic measure has quietly evolved into a permanent political project, with City staff looped into closed-door meetings, management plans, and public “studies” designed to justify a preordained result.The Supervisor’s office has repeatedly blurred the line between legislative advocacy and departmental interference — shaping outcomes that should have been left to transparent process. The same dynamic we saw under Preston has resurfaced: policy by coordination, not consultation.
Why This Matters — Accountability, Process, and Public Trust
San Francisco drew its boundaries for a reason. Supervisors are meant to legislate — not administer, not steer, not pull strings behind the scenes. When those lines are crossed, departments lose their independence, staff lose the freedom to act professionally, and residents lose faith that public decisions reflect actual process rather than private influence. The lesson of Peskin, the fallout from Preston, and the ongoing Hayes Street controversy all point to the same truth: When political offices drive departmental outcomes, public trust collapses. Good governance isn’t about control — it’s about letting process, evidence, and the public interest lead.