At first glance, an “impact” or “feasibility” study sounds responsible. But here’s the problem: if the street closure was pushed from the beginning without transparency or broad consent, the study can’t correct that bias. It just papers over it. And whether it’s branded as an impact study (measuring consequences) or a feasibility study (judging if permanence is possible), the purpose is the same: to turn a contested, one-sided experiment into a permanent policy …regardless of the neighborhood’s fractured reality.
Here are the key reasons it fails reality:
- Starting Point is Skewed
A study asks: “what has been the impact of the closure?” or “is permanence feasible?” But the street has already been closed for five years under a narrow, contested permit. The baseline is broken — you’re not measuring reality, you’re measuring a manipulated experiment. - Voices Left Out from the Start
Residents, retailers, families, and many small businesses were never asked if they wanted the closure. Their lived experiences of lost foot traffic, safety issues, or blocked access – are outside the “official” record. A study that doesn’t begin with them will never reflect them. - Data vs. Reality
A study can count how many people sit on the street on a Friday night. It can’t capture the silent attrition of retail, the economic harm to merchants, or the quiet fear residents have about walking home after dark. Numbers miss nuance. - False Neutrality
Commissioned studies often come framed to deliver a palatable conclusion. “More public space = good.” But that framing hides the real trade-offs: who benefits (bars, real estate, a political talking point) and who pays (residents, retailers, everyday quality of life). - Five Years Too Late
If a study comes only after years of selective enforcement, broken rules, and neighborhood exclusion — it doesn’t inform decision-making. It legitimizes a foregone conclusion.
Bottom line:
An impact/feasibility study under these conditions doesn’t restore balance it only further entrenches the bias; it makes inequity look like evidence.
Why We’re Highlighting This Now
Supervisor Mahmood and his allies are preparing to lean on a Hayes Street “Impact/Feasibility Study” as the next step toward locking in a permanent closure. But on the ground, the neighborhood is fractured: bars vs. retail, small businesses vs. political showpieces, lived experience vs. the agenda of a narrow clique.
The public needs to be ready. When the study is rolled out, it won’t be neutral. It will be presented as proof that the closure should stay. Our job is to see through that framing …and to make sure people know it’s not evidence, it’s strategy.
📈 Hundreds in Hayes Valley are following this story
I agree 100%. We’re in a day and age where supervisors are simply working on feel good policy for their own political resume. Bilal is worse than Dean. I do not think Dean would have gone this far considering the history here with the first 2 waves of merchants on the 500 and then on 300 being vocal about how this closure was not working out. It’s surprising that the closure on the 400 has lasted this long. I agree with the many perspectives you guys have put out highlighting the many absurd angles at play here. The EZ was the last straw for me. If Bilal is going to have any success with this he should be recalled. Enough is enough. Hayes St was thriving before this sore experiment. We do not need this to be made permanent.