For three decades, the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association (HVNA) has been treated by City Hall as the voice of our neighborhood. Agencies check the box by consulting HVNA, and politicians cite HVNA statements as if they reflect community consensus. But here’s the truth: HVNA doesn’t represent the diversity of Hayes Valley. Its board operates in a silo, behind closed doors. And its authority is assumed, not earned.
A Board by Design
According to HVNA’s own bylaws, the board of directors has thirteen voting members: six officers, six at-large directors, and the immediate past president. Out of those 13, no more than two can be business owners or non-resident property owners. Renters who make up the majority of Hayes Valley are guaranteed no seats at all. These limits weren’t softened as the neighborhood grew more diverse; instead, HVNA reinforced them. During COVID, just as more neighbors began raising concerns about fairness, equity, and HVNA’s claims of representation, the association rewrote its rules to tighten control. That’s exactly when the cracks started to show and why HVSafe came onto the scene. In practice, the board is self-selecting and insular. Elections are presented as a single slate rather than competitive choices, reinforcing control instead of opening the process. The effect is obvious: HVNA’s board is dominated by homeowners and property owners, while renters and small businesses who make up the backbone of Hayes Valley are systematically sidelined.
A Silo, Not a Neighborhood
Policies aren’t shaped through open dialogue; it’s usually a few insiders (often board officers or past presidents like Gail or Jim) who run with an idea and pull the strings, creating fiefdoms inside the association. When neighbors’ needs or positions aren’t being met, it should be a net positive that coalitions emerge …that’s how a healthy neighborhood evolves. Instead, HVNA has taken the opposite approach: minimizing, discrediting, and bullying neighbors and small businesses that challenge its control. What the public sees later is the dog-and-pony show: a “community meeting” where the outcome is already decided, polished, and packaged as consensus.
Consensus Without Consent: The Hayes Street Closure
HVNA manufactures authority by presenting its positions as community consensus, and City agencies rarely question it. On the outside, HVNA sugarcoats its role with events and street fairs; only later do many realize the policy agenda hidden underneath. The Hayes Street closure is the clearest example. HVNA pushed the permit as if it carried broad merchant support, even though only two business representatives are allowed on their board. How does such a narrow group justify shutting down one of the neighborhood’s main retail corridors? Yet City agencies leaned on HVNA’s “support” to justify renewing the permit again and again allowing a small circle of insiders to override the experience of an entire neighborhood. It’s also worth noting that the Hayes Valley Merchants Council (HVMC) (effectively an extension of HVNA) has stayed neutral on the closure because of the optics. But neutrality isn’t leadership, and silence has allowed HVNA to dominate the narrative while real small business voices are sidelined.
Why This Matters
This isn’t just bureaucratic failure. It’s democratic failure. A board capped at two business owners and offering no guaranteed renter representation cannot credibly claim to speak for Hayes Valley. And yet, the City treats HVNA as if it does outsourcing legitimacy to an insular group while excluding the very people most affected by its policies. The result: harmful decisions like the Hayes Street closure, imposed under the false banner of “community consensus.”
Beyond Hayes Valley: The Precedent Problem
Nowhere in City law does it say a neighborhood association should be the de facto voice of a community. Yet in practice, City agencies and elected officials defer to HVNA as if its approval is equivalent to real consensus. This sets a dangerous precedent. It allows government to outsource engagement to a single, narrow group and to call the job done. Instead of talking to renters, families, and the businesses on the ground, officials check a box by talking to HVNA. It’s not just lazy governance; it’s a shortcut that distorts democracy. If HVNA can be treated as the neighborhood’s voice despite excluding most of the neighborhood, then any association in San Francisco could be used the same way. The result: policies driven by insiders, while the people most affected are locked out of the process.
Busting the Myth
HVNA is not Hayes Valley. It is a siloed, self-perpetuating institution that has outgrown its legitimacy. Our coalition exists to do what HVNA will not: review policy, surface the impacts, and share information with a broader net of neighbors, renters, and small businesses. Representation should come from inclusion and transparency, not from a handful of insiders making decisions behind closed doors.
This is the delineation that matters: HVNA may host events to package its influence, but real community voice comes from opening the process, not from a small group packaging pre-baked outcomes as consensus. What’s happening in Hayes Valley isn’t unique. The same shortcut is spreading across San Francisco, and the cost is real community representation.