December 2025- March 2026
This thread documents follow-up communications with SFMTA regarding practical challenges in community documentation of public street conditions during the Hayes Street closure. The focus is on clear identification of the on-site representative to support neutral, safe oversight.
December 2, 2025 – Initial Email to SFTMA Shared Spaces Team
We are writing to raise an operational concern regarding the suitability of the current designated Responsible Operator for the Hayes Street weekend closure (SFMTA Permit No. 1316522). This is not a personal complaint, nor an effort to revisit the outcome of the recent renewal hearing. It is a narrow, forward-looking concern based on recurring issues observed by multiple residents and merchants over an extended period. Our aim is simply to ensure that public-facing roles associated with permitted street closures are filled by individuals who can engage neutrally, calmly, and constructively with the full range of stakeholders impacted by these programs.
1. Documented Concerns Regarding Community Interactions
Over the past two years, numerous neighbors and small businesses have described uncomfortable or tense interactions with the current permit operator, including:
- disproportionate escalation of routine questions;
- a raised-voice directive telling a resident to “stand back” during a neutral inquiry about a vendor at Patricia’s Green;
- defensive or abrupt responses to standard permit-related questions; and
- merchants reporting that basic operational inquiries were met with hostility rather than clarity.
These experiences have led many residents and businesses to avoid direct interaction altogether. This avoidance undermines SFMTA’s expectation that permit operators engage openly with the community. Given the recurring nature of these concerns, we respectfully request that SFMTA review whether the current operator is well-suited for a role requiring steady, neutral, and accessible engagement.
2. Escalation of Routine Civic Oversight to Police/Legal Channels
We also note a recent instance in which routine neighborhood documentation of the street closure, photographs of an empty public street containing no individuals was escalated into a police report and legal correspondence by the permit operator. Community members have long documented public spaces as part of normal civic oversight of municipal programs. Elevating such ordinary activity into law-enforcement or legal channels creates unnecessary apprehension and suggests difficulty managing the basic transparency expected of a public-facing role.
3. Concern About Suitability in a High-Visibility Position
The operator for a major street closure must be able to:
- maintain calm interactions under pressure;
- engage neutrally with all stakeholders, including those with concerns;
- accept community oversight without misinterpretation; and
- build trust with local businesses and residents.
Based on repeated community feedback, we are concerned that the current operator may not meet these expectations. This is not a request for punitive action, and not a challenge to the renewal. It is a request for an operational review of role-fit.
4. Requested Next Steps
We respectfully request that SFMTA note these suitability concerns in the permit record and consider whether additional guidance or expectations may be appropriate for the Responsible Operator role moving forward. Our goal is to support transparency, safety, and healthy community relations around this closure.
December 15, 2025 – SFMTA Shared Spaces Program Manager Response
I wanted to confirm receiving your message. Thanks for letting us know about these interpersonal issues, we hope all parties are able to interact respectfully going forward.
January 5, 2026 – HVS Clarification
Thank you for confirming receipt of our December message. We wanted to briefly clarify the nature of the concern we raised, particularly in light of developments since then. Our concern is not interpersonal in the sense of a dispute between parties. Rather, it is operational. The issue is that routine community oversight and basic closure-related questions are being treated and responded to in a personal manner, resulting in defensive responses rather than neutral administration.
At present, there is no effective or reliable community-facing point of contact associated with the Hayes Street closure that residents or small businesses feel comfortable approaching regarding routine matters. Subsequent events have reinforced this concern, including the continued escalation of routine oversight matters and the absence of an accessible operator during time-sensitive situations.
We share this clarification so the record accurately reflects the nature of the concern raised.
March 13, 2026 – URGENT Follow-Up to SFMTA: On-Site Operator Identifiability
Following up on our earlier correspondence, we are raising an immediate operational concern regarding the Hayes Street closure.
As you know, Andrew Seigner has filed a civil harassment legal action involving community members. Because that matter centers in part on photography and allegations of harassment, it has created a practical issue for residents who document conditions on the public street during the closure. In his role as the on-site “manager” associated with the permit, his presence on the block forms part of the operational structure of the closure.
Previously, Andrew was typically identifiable by wearing a yellow safety vest while present on the block in an operational capacity. Since the legal action was filed, that visible identifier is no longer being used. As a result, residents documenting street conditions cannot reliably recognize when he is present on the block. In one recent instance, a resident took general photos of the closure area without realizing Andrew was present at a distance in the background. That image was later cited as harassment. This incident illustrates how individuals present on the block can easily appear in the background of routine documentation without being identifiable from a distance.
As you previously explained, SFMTA does not have staff available to conduct regular in-person monitoring of Shared Spaces roadway closures and must rely largely on complaints to identify issues. Under these circumstances, clear identification of the on-site representative becomes particularly important. Given the pending legal action and the continued documentation of conditions on the public right-of-way by residents and small businesses, the on-site representative associated with the permit should remain clearly identifiable while performing that role on the block. Because the closure will again be active today, we ask that SFMTA promptly communicate to the permit holder that the on-site operator must remain clearly identifiable while acting in that capacity so that further misunderstandings or legal disputes can be avoided.
Can SFMTA staff please communicate this to Andrew today?
This correspondence has been edited for clarity and conciseness. Routine greetings and contact details have been omitted; the substance of the communication remains unchanged.