Hayes Street Temporary Closure Extension
Today’s ISCOTT hearing confirmed what we have been saying for years: this closure has morphed into an experiment that defies logic to continue at this frequency. What began as a temporary measure has become a recurring disruption sustained by politics rather than performance. After nearly five years of “temporary” operation, the committee denied the request to expand the closure to Sundays—a clear indication that city departments are no longer comfortable extending a program that continues to strain enforcement, resources, and public trust.
Key takeaways
City agencies voiced concern.
The Fire Department stated it would “not object for this year’s application” but is “in recess for next year’s renewal.” ISCOTT Chair Bryant Woo pressed the permit holder on enforcement, safety, and sound management—admitting dissatisfaction with the answers received. During the exchange Bryant even raised the possibility of shortening hours to reduce impact, underscoring concern about the overuse of the closure and lack of control.
Supervisor involvement was overt.
A representative from Supervisor Bilal Mahmood’s office spoke in favor of maintaining the two day closure. The presence of a legislative aide in a staff-level proceeding underscores the political pressure now surrounding what should be a neutral, technical review.
Public frustration is growing.
Several residents described HVNA as “unresponsive” and cited ongoing issues with trash, parking, traffic and noise. Even supporters acknowledged operational problems that remain unresolved after four years.
Merchant disengagement speaks volumes.
Only one ownership group (operating the bars Anina and Brass Tacks) and one store on Linden (operated by Lloyd Silverstein) spoke in favor of continuing the closure. Not a single retailer or small business on Hayes Street itself participated. Operators were on the call but chose not to speak…an act of quiet protest that reflects exhaustion and loss of faith in a process that feels predetermined.
Even the bar ownership group acknowledged the closure benefits them only minimally…a telling admission that undercuts the claim of broad or substantial economic value. If those most closely aligned with the permit holder see limited benefit, there is no credible justification for keeping the street closed.
Adding to that imbalance, several individuals who spoke in favor identified themselves as vendors participating in weekend markets held under the same permit. The dynamic they described temporary pop-ups benefiting from a closed street while permanent retailers lose access and customers illustrates why so many storefront businesses have disengaged. This tension lies at the heart of the closure’s economic harm: a system where transient events thrive while long-standing merchants shoulder the cost.
Overreach and misplaced priorities.
Even long-time proponents are now tied to the business interests created by the closure. Doug from Proxy, the for-profit entity managing the adjacent lots (Parcel K and L), spoke in favor once again –an appearance that underscored how commercial benefit, not community balance or leaseholder stability, now drives much of the push to keep the street closed.
A denial of expansion, not a sign of confidence.
The committee’s refusal to add Sundays and discussion of possible shorter hours makes clear that even within City Hall, patience is wearing thin. This was not a reaffirmation of success; it was a cautious allowance to keep a limited version running under watch.
Growing disconnect between planners and the lived history of a business corridor now being reshaped through ongoing experimentation.
During the hearing, a couple of graduate students from UC Berkeley described conducting informal surveys of the closure in coordination with the permit holder…an academic exercise now being used to validate a predetermined outcome. Their comments, drawn from attending weekend events, framed the closure as universally positive, yet they overlooked the day-to-day realities of operating a small business, meeting payroll, or maintaining a lease on a corridor repeatedly disrupted under the guise of a “temporary” program.
The message from today’s hearing is clear: the experiment has reached its limit.
If a “temporary” closure needs a fifth year of political intervention, departmental frustration, and another taxpayer-funded study to justify itself, then it has failed on its own terms. We thank the departments and residents who raised these concerns and will continue to call for Hayes Street to return to normal operations—with individual, event-based permits available for anyone who wishes to host social gatherings in Hayes Valley.
We also welcome an open dialogue with City Hall about Parcel K. It makes little sense to maintain this level of competing tension for tango nights and jazz quartets when these events can easily and responsibly be accommodated on Parcel K.