The San Francisco city attorney’s office will subpoena developer Nick Podell to compel him to attend a city hearing and respond to allegations that he failed to fulfill a sizable economic commitment made in 2016 as part of a Mission District housing deal.
The developer allegedly promised to fund $500,000 in renovations while securing permits to build the Madelon, a luxury Mission District apartment complex at 2000 Bryant St.
The subpoena follows a request from District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder to the Government Audit and Oversight Committee. Podell has not confirmed that he will be present at the Feb. 19 meeting and, to ensure his presence, Fielder asked for the subpoena.
It is unclear what will happen if he ignores the subpoena. The city attorney’s office declined to comment.
The dispute goes back to September 2016, when Podell’s lawyer, speaking at a hearing, committed $500,000 for a community art space within 681 Florida St., a 100-percent-affordable housing complex built on a parcel of land that Podell donated as part of the development deal.
The art space is now occupied by Cultura y Arte Nativa de las Americas (CANA), and the work was completed in October of 2024.
“I’m asking the clerk to issue a subpoena to have him appear before our committee, to answer our questions about why he has not fulfilled the promise to the community around this half a million dollars,” Fielder said after Thursday’s meeting of the Government Audit and Oversight Committee. Podell was not invited to attend yesterday’s meeting.
Records of Podell’s commitment include a 2016 hearing in front of the Board of Supervisors, where Podell’s representative, attorney Steven Vettel, said his client had committed to providing $500,000 in capital funding to build out the 10,000-square-foot community art space.
That oral statement was followed up with a letter to then-District 9 Supervisor David Campos. Although it has no signature, Podell’s name is at the end of a letter describing different pledges, including the $500,0000 commitment.
Emails obtained by Mission Local show communication between two nonprofit housing developers and the New York-based company Junius Real Estate Partners, which appears to be acting on Podell’s behalf.
The correspondence dates from 2021 to 2024 and includes multiple attempts by the Mission Economic Development Agency and the Tenderloin Neighborhood Development Corporation to collect the $500,000.
“MEDA and our partners at TNDC have understood the tenant improvement commitment for the community arts space at 681 Florida Street since we were awarded the site. We have always prioritized this investment as a vital resource for the Mission, and we are glad to be working towards a resolution with Nick Podell,” read a statement by Mission Economic Development Agency.
“We look forward to seeing these funds go to CANA’s new space to ensure this cultural hub can fully serve our neighborhood.”
A Junius representative wrote in 2021 that the funds could be disbursed “to whatever entity you want.” In an exchange in January 2024, however, Junius informed the developers the money was to be sent upon completion of the project.
In October, a MEDA representative wrote, “kindly asking” for the $500,000 as construction wrapped up.
Susan Heller, whose company, H.Y. Floor & Gameline Painting, Inc, completed the flooring at the art space, said she is still owed 35 percent of her bill, about $47,000.
The total cost of the buildout was up to $2.7 million, according to Roberto Hernandez, chief economic officer at CANA. Private donors paid for most of it, but the expectation was that they would also receive Podell’s contribution.
“We’re just a small family business. Why are the small businesses funding this big developer? It just doesn’t seem fair,” said Heller.
Reached by phone on Thursday, Podell declined to comment. Junius Real Estate Partners did not reply to a request for comment.
The last time a supervisor called for a subpoena to be issued was in June, when the city attorney — on behalf of District 10 Supervisor Shamann Walton and Fielder — subpoenaed the former leaders of the Parks Alliance after the nonprofit dissolved in economic chaos.
Former District 3 Supervisor Aaron Peskin also asked for a subpoena in 2016 over the Millennium Tower.
“marcos” makes some good points that “business-as-usual” as practiced by the “City Family” (aka SFgov.org) looks a lot like “honest services fraud”.
This is going to get interesting:
In 2016, developer Nick Podell’s attorney made a commitment to pay $500,000 for the build-out of a community art space as part of a development deal for “The Madelon,” a luxury apartment complex in San Francisco’s Mission District.
Whether this was a legally binding agreement or an example of government extortion remains a point of significant dispute. As of today, the San Francisco City Attorney’s office is issuing a subpoena for Podell to address allegations that he shirked this pledge.
1. ARGUMENT FOR A LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENT:
a. Proponents of this view argue the payment was a formal part of the entitlement process used to secure city permits.
b. Securing Permits: The $500,000 “sweetener” was added to the deal in the final days before it was approved by the city in 2016. The project was subsequently voted through 11-0.
c. Official Representation: The commitment was made publicly by Podell’s lawyer during a hearing.
d. Condition of Development: The funds were intended for a community art space now occupied by Cultura y Arte Nativa de las Americas (CANA), located within an affordable housing complex on land Podell had previously donated as part of the same deal.
e. Enforcement Actions: San Francisco Supervisor Jackie Fielder requested the subpoena for Podell to appear before the Government Audit and Oversight Committee on February 19, 2026, to answer for the unfulfilled pledge.
2. ARGUMENT FOR GOVERNMENT EXTORTION:
a. Critics of the arrangement, and some commentary on the case, suggest the payment may represent a coercive practice.
b. Extraction of Payments: Some observers argue that such “sweeteners” are essentially extorted payments from developers to favor a supervisor’s political allies in exchange for “honest government services”.
c. Permit Leveraging: The allegation is that developers are forced to make these financial commitments to bypass political hurdles and secure necessary building permits for market-rate projects.
d. Community Benefits Agreements (CBAs): Agreements where a developer provides community amenities in exchange for local support can be legally questionable if the government requires them as a condition for approval. (See 1a. and 1d. above)
This is not the a one-off example of honest services fraud by an extortion operation run out of the D9 Supervisor’s office.
1979 Mission, “The Marvel in the Mission” was sat on by Campos and Ronen for years while they demanded the developer sell the parcel to their nonprofit base.
The fund to acquire the parcel came from Jon Jacobo, accused rapist, cutting a side deal to beggar Western SOMA/HUB’s affordable housing dollars to shunt to the nonprofit base he thought would buoy him to the D9 seat himself.
All of this is happening through secret negotiations using the power of the D9 seat as leverage to condition public approvals on pay to play.
Turns out that the fentanyl heads are not the only addicts in The Mission that will engage in risky behavior in order to secure their next fix.
Here’s an AI summary of the relevant legal elements of honest services fraud, defrauding D9 residents of honest government services, are arrayed out for all to see:
1. 18 U.S.C. § 1346 (Definition of “scheme or artifice to defraud”): This statute states that a “scheme or artifice to defraud” includes a scheme to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.
In this case, “community benefits,” payments from developers in exchange for project approval, are extorted by successive D9 supervisors, the products of said extortion go to key political supporters of said supervisors as kickbacks.
The honest services fraud centers on community benefits going to political supporters instead of such payments codified into black letter law, enforced equally for all comers, and most importantly, proceeds going to the government, not private nonprofits.
18 U.S.C. § 1341 & 1343 (Mail/Wire Fraud): These are used to prosecute schemes to defraud, often involving the use of mail or interstate wire communications (email, phone calls) to carry out the extortion or bribery.
Extortion, kickbacks and bribery that use interstate wire communications (all emails are considered legally as running through interstate or international servers) are all crimes. I wonder what a careful reading of the email threads surrounding this extortion operation would look like?
18 U.S.C. § 666 (Theft or Bribery Concerning Federal Programs): If the project involves state or local governments receiving federal funds, this statute can be used to prosecute bribery or kickbacks.
Skilling v. United States (561 U.S. 358): The Supreme Court narrowed honest services fraud to apply specifically to bribery and kickback schemes. Blocking a project for “allies to get paid” (a kickback scheme) falls within this definition.
There’s no federal involvement in this case that I know of, but the definition of “blocking a projects” until “allies get paid” is applicable to this case.
McDonnell v. United States (579 U.S. 550): Clarified that bribery involves an “official act” (e.g., voting, influencing, approving a permit) in exchange for value.
Campos, Ronen and now Fielder engaging in enforcing the under the table deal because the kickbacks were never fulfilled.
Key Elements of the Crime
To convict a public official of this type of corruption, the government must prove:
A Fiduciary Duty: The official owed a duty of honest services to the public.
– Check. The public is entitled to a public process when supervisors exchange approvals for money.
Scheme to Defraud: The official acted to deprive the public of those services.
– Check. The current D9 supervisor is going to the mat to enforce this kickback side deal.
Bribery/Kickback: The official took action (or failed to take action) to influence a government project in exchange for money or “something of value” (even if that value goes to an ally).
– Check
Use of Wires/Mail: The scheme involved interstate wires or mail.
– Probably not
Penalties:
Conviction for honest services fraud is a felony, carrying a maximum penalty of up to 20 years in federal prison and fines of up to $250,000.
Disclaimer: The information above is for informational purposes based on search results and does not constitute legal advice.
= – = – =
The $500K should go to fund the criminal prosecution of those who have been depriving D9 residents of honest government services by extorting payments from developers that go to their favored political allies.