Over the past year, a small group centered around the Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association (HVNA) and Supervisor Bilal Mahmood quietly set the direction for the future of the 400 block of Hayes Street.
A study was launched.
Funding was secured.
Agencies were coordinated.
For the small businesses and neighbors who actually live and work here, one question stands out:
How did this happen without us?
What the records show
Public records reveal a clear, predetermined sequence that bypassed the community:
- The study was requested by Supervisor Bilal Mahmood.
- The City had to amend an existing transportation funding program just to make it eligible.
- Approximately $410,000 in restricted Prop I funds (originally tied to Octavia Boulevard) were reallocated.
- Multiple agencies — SFMTA, SF Planning, and the Transportation Authority — are now executing it.
This follows the same pattern we’ve seen since the closure began as a 2020 “temporary” pandemic measure: repeated administrative renewals, ignored merchant complaints, and appeal attempts blocked by the five-supervisor signature rule. Public input has never been part of the plan.
How the Funding Changes the Picture
The funding shapes what the study is able to do. While the allocation itself is limited, the study it enables is not. It extends beyond transportation analysis to include public space activation, “promenade” concepts, and long-term design scenarios.
A study — and what comes with it
Officially, the study claims to “understand how Hayes Street is used.” In reality, its scope goes much further:
- Analysis of current conditions
- Evaluation of the closure
- Development of future scenarios
- Concept-level design and activation ideas
In other words, it is not just observing the street — it is shaping what comes next.
How it moved forward
The process was deliberately structured to keep the public at arm’s length:
- An advisory committee expressed support for the funding — at a meeting where no public comment was recorded.
- The item was buried inside broader program language instead of being clearly labeled as a Hayes Street action.
- Internal documents already use terms like “Hayes Promenade.”
The full scope — its funding, purpose, and long-term implications — was not presented in a way that allowed residents and small businesses to meaningfully understand or influence what was being advanced.
Why this matters
Hayes Street is not just a case study.
It is a functioning neighborhood corridor:
- Home to small businesses
- Used by residents every day
- Part of the city’s transportation network
Decisions about its future carry real consequences. When those decisions are shaped through incremental, low-visibility steps rather than a clear and open process, the public is effectively shut out.
A question of process
What began as a temporary COVID-era measure has become an ongoing effort to reshape a prominent business corridor — advanced despite sustained opposition from residents and small businesses. At no point was there an open discussion of reopening Hayes Street — or a clear explanation for why that option was not pursued. Instead, the direction was set through a sequence of administrative steps, and the study now underway is positioned to carry it forward.
As that process continues, one principle remains essential:
The public should be able to understand how decisions are being made — before those decisions are effectively set in motion.
This study should have helped inform a decision.
Instead, it became the moment the direction was locked in.