KQED61%

Mission District Street Closures to Curb Sex Work Extended for 18 Months 53%

By Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman30%

6/17/2026, 8:48:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Appeal to Emotion, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 32.7% saturation with 235 hits. Analysis detected 1,999 faulty-reasoning hits from 718 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.5% and a BS Rank of 53% (10,481 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.10% of the article peer group.

Street closures meant to curb an entrenched sex work trade in San Francisco’s Mission District will remain for another 18 months, after the city's transportation board of directors voted to extend the traffic barriers on Tuesday. 
Many Capp and Shotwell street residents who live on blocks with the closures implored directors during public comment to extend the program, claiming the intervention has drastically reduced the impacts of prostitution on neighbors. 
Others who live nearby said the closures have merely transferred the issue to their block. 
The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency first installed the barriers in 2023, turning four locations from 18th to 22nd on Capp Street into dead ends, at the request of the city’s police department. 
The agency placed barriers at four more locations on Shotwell Street the next year, and granted an 18-month extension of the program in October 2024. 
“Before the bollards were installed, living on Capp Street was a nightmare,” said Jason Schlachet, a resident since 2008. 
Schlachet described “being woken up in the middle of the night to the sound of women screaming for their lives, bumper-to-bumper traffic, a dozen women per block walking in the middle of the road, stepping over discarded used condoms and intimidation from pimps.” 
Schlachet urged directors to continue the closures. 
He said they made an immediate and effective change. 
“Capp Street instantly became a residential street again,” Schlachet said. 
But for Laurel Coco, who lives at 18th and Shotwell streets, just a block away from Capp, the closures have merely moved the red light district to her street. 
“It is heartbreaking to witness the exploitation of women and underage girls outside my window. 
But SFMTA must take responsibility for the displacement that your infrastructure has created,” Coco said, adding that she is routinely solicited while walking home, and that her husband was physically assaulted outside their front door by several sex workers and their pimp this week. 
Coco asked for “comparable traffic interventions on our block.” 
“City engineering should not protect one block by sacrificing another. 
Rather than blindly extending this pilot, we demand equity,” Coco said. 
Board member Janet Tarlov said that the board has “endeavored to be of assistance to the police department in maintaining the closures,” but that many of the residents’ concerns “touch on very serious criminal matters which are under the purview of the San Francisco Police Department.” 
Antonio Flores, acting lieutenant with the Special Victims Unit at the San Francisco Police Department, told directors that the barriers have been effective in reducing activity in the immediate area, but the market moving was a predictable outcome of the closures. 
“We knew that it was going to get pushed to a different direction,” Flores said. 
Flores said recent changes to California law, including a state bill that makes it illegal to loiter in a public place with the intent to purchase commercial sex, are aiding the police department’s enforcement efforts. 
Shotwell Street resident Matthew Blackshaw said before the barricades, he and his partner considered leaving the neighborhood to raise a family, but now are considering staying. 
However, he said, they are not a long-term solution. 
“I strongly encourage you to renew the barricades for the sake of our neighborhoods, while at the same time exploring longer-term solutions that can create a profession that is safe for not just the residents here, but also for the people who engage in this kind of work,” Blackshaw said. 
In approving the extension, the board said that the program has continued since 2023 without metrics to quantify the success of the program or a process for gathering community input. 
Vice Chair Stephanie Cajina said the board requested a six-month evaluation of the program when it was last extended in 2024, but it never happened. 
“The feedback loop from the community is not there, and the way for us to evaluate success is not there,” Cajina said. 
The unanimously approved, amended resolution included a request for SFMTA staff to evaluate transportation-related metrics for the program, and to urge SFPD to develop measures to quantify the success of the closures. 
SFMTA Streets Division Director Viktoriya Wise apologized for the previous planned six-month evaluation never happening. 
“I think we can be back in six months,” she said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.1%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.6%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias6.1%This article: 7.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.2%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias7.0%This article: 10.7%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 3.0%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic10.7%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.8%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.8%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias7.8%This article: 1.5%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.1%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias1.5%This article: 7.9%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 5.2%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect7.9%This article: 1.3%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.4%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion1.3%This article: 5.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.1%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias5.0%This article: 5.7%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect5.7%This article: 5.2%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 3.1%CalMatters: 3.5%Optimism Bias5.2%This article: 1.3%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias1.3%This article: 28.1%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 4.6%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias28.1%This article: 2.1%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.3%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias2.1%This article: 12.5%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.7%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error12.5%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.1%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.1%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.7%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 2.5%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority17.0%This article: 4.2%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.1%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma4.2%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.4%CalMatters: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.1%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning3.1%This article: 4.7%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 2.5%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization4.7%This article: 6.4%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring6.4%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.3%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.6%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 4.6%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion20.6%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.5%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 22.7%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.5%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)22.7%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.6%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof10.6%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 32.7%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 4.5%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal32.7%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.2%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground7.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.1%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.4%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.4%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote7.4%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.7%CalMatters: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 11.3%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 2.5%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice11.3%This article: 10.6%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.1%CalMatters: 1.9%Indoctrination10.6%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.4%CalMatters: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Azul Dahlstrom-Eckman: 1.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

718 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers78%attributed speech159writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSan Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency • 33 words • 0.0% coverageSan Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJason Schlachet • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJason Schlachet • 43 words • 0.0% coverageJason Schlachet • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJason Schlachet • 9 words • 100.0% coverageJason Schlachet • 10 words • 0.0% coverageLaurel Coco • 29 words • 0.0% coverageLaurel Coco • 15 words • 100.0% coverageLaurel Coco • 44 words • 100.0% coverageLaurel Coco • 9 words • 0.0% coverageLaurel Coco • 10 words • 0.0% coverageLaurel Coco • 11 words • 100.0% coverageJanet Tarlov • 46 words • 0.0% coverageAntonio Flores • 41 words • 0.0% coverageAntonio Flores • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAntonio Flores • 35 words • 0.0% coverageMatthew Blackshaw • 26 words • 0.0% coverageMatthew Blackshaw • 9 words • 0.0% coverageMatthew Blackshaw • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageStephanie Cajina • 25 words • 0.0% coverageStephanie Cajina • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageViktoriya Wise • 15 words • 100.0% coverageViktoriya Wise • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Laurel Coco

100%flagged-word coverage
118 attributed words21% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-41.5 ptsWriter: 41.5%Laurel Coco: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+37.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Laurel Coco: 37.3%37.3%Indoctrination+22.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Laurel Coco: 22.0%22.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.