San Francisco developer Nick Podell has agreed to pay half a million dollars 10 years after he first pledged it to Mission District groups. The promise was part of 2016 negotiations to build a 203-unit housing project in the neighborhood.
“I said I’d do it, so I’m doing it,” Podell said on Monday, without explaining further.
Mission Local reported in October that Podell owed $500,000 to different groups involved in building a community arts space at the 681 Florida St. That work was finished in late 2024, and the funds were due after that. The Florida Street affordable housing project sits next to Podell’s market-rate housing project, which sold last year for $119.3 million, according to the San Francisco Business Times.
Last week, District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder asked the city attorney’s office to subpoena developer Podell after he failed to confirm his presence at a city hearing on the allegations. The city attorney’s office readied that subpoena last week, Mission Local reported.
Podell said he told the relevant parties on Feb. 5 that he was disbursing the funds.
The dispute dates back to September 2016, when Podell’s attorney committed $500,000 for the art space at 681 Florida St. That 100-percent affordable housing complex was built on land that Podell donated as part of a deal with neighborhood activists to drop their opposition to his market-rate project at 2000 Bryant St.
“The dispute dates back to September 2016, when Podell’s attorney committed $500,000 for the art space at 681 Florida St. That 100-percent affordable housing complex was built on land that Podell donated as part of a deal with neighborhood activists to drop their opposition to his market-rate project at 2000 Bryant St.”
That’s extortion — plain and simple.
The 2016 date would put Ronen beyond the reach of the statute of limitations.
I wonder if Fielder’s participation in enforcing the deal would expose her similarly, only within the statute of limitations?
And when they say “neighborhood activists,” they mean city funded nonprofit poverty charities that stand to benefit from the extortion operation, and which also just happen to contribute to the elevation of successful D9 candidates by supporting them politically, again, using our tax dollars.
Yes. How dare anyone try to work to make a development better for the community it’s going to be located in. The nerve. Won’t someone think of the poor developers?
Do you think that it might be possible to get better development deals without violating federal extortion and honest services fraud law?
Rules must be legislated beforehand and any payments that development approvals are conditioned on must be in the public record.
If Campos, Ronen and Fielder were all part of a conspiracy that culminated with the Podell payout this week, then that might be a way to toll the statute of limitations and rope them into any federal criminal prosecution.
The nerve, indeed — those pesky housing developers!
Developers make the community better — plain and simply — by creating new places for people to live; which tempers the rising costs of housing for everyone.
The fact of the matter is that 5+ decades of developer-bashing NIMBY-led anti-housing policies has led to chronic housing scarcity in SF (and throughout the Bay Area and coastal CA) — resulting in runaway housing costs.
Housing developers should not be subject to extortion any more than farmers (that provide the food that you eat) should be.
This kind of extortive behavior is actually quite Trumpian — except that in SF it’s largely coming from the left-end of the political spectrum.
So unless you built the home that you live in, then you live in housing that was created by a developer. (Then again, even if you built your own home, you too — by definition — are a developer.)
In order to build in this city, you have to bribe someone….
Whether this was a legally binding agreement or an example of government extortion remains a point of significant dispute.
Supervisor Campos secured this substantial financial commitment,
at a time when his vote was necessary for approval.
If accurate, these circumstances raise serious legal and ethical concerns. When an elected official seeks financial commitments from an applicant whose project depends on that official’s vote, it creates at minimum the appearance of quid pro quo decision-making and potential misuse of discretionary authority.
Excellent. Thank you Jackie for holding him accountable on his promises to the community!
Developers is gangsters.
Object lesson: put it in writing with a contract. Who’s disbursing what amount of funds, on what date or milestone, contingent on what, and what consequences will ensure if either party defaults.
‘Extortion “under color of official right” under the Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C. § 1951) occurs when a public official wrongfully uses their office’s authority to obtain money or property not due to them, often in exchange for official acts. It does not require explicit threats or force, as the misuse of office itself constitutes the coercion.’
Just like the trump administration…
Exactly!
There was never a contract.
It appears there was never a formal contract. But rather a verbal agreement made between Campos and developer on the eve of Campos’s vote. Later an email was sent to confirm the extorted pledge, but there was never a signature. Not sure how any of this is legal? D9 supervisors sound more like an organized crime ring.
It’s obvious that there was not a contract. Hence my suggestion that they should have put it in writing with a contract.
Whether in “writing” or not, making the project’s approval contingent on getting the developer to pony up $500K — for whatever the purpose — is extortion.
When a public official does it, it’s a federal crime called “honest services fraud”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honest_services_fraud
Doesn’t make any difference if the official pocketed the funds themselves or had them directed to some other entity — including a “community group”.