The Case Against City Attorney David Chiu and Mayor Daniel Lurie
A Special Investigation by Journalist Malik Washington, Destination Freedom Media Group & The Davis Vanguard
SAN FRANCISCO — Let me be direct.
This is not a matter of policy disagreement. This is a matter of enforceable law, documented violations, and the deliberate non-use of government authority in the face of ongoing harm.
Two men possess the legal authority to prevent the suffering documented in Parts 1 and 2 of this series. Two men have chosen not to use it.
Their names are David Chiu and Daniel Lurie.
One is the City Attorney of San Francisco — the man who authored one of the most significant expansions of tenant protections in California history and who lives in the Bayview neighborhood where Alice Griffith tenants are suffering right now.
The other is the Mayor of San Francisco — an heir to the Levi Strauss fortune who spent over $8 million of his own money to win the mayor’s race and who told this journalist, directly, that he has “limited authority” over private companies — even as his administration awards those same companies tens of millions of dollars in public contracts.
This article is an admonishment to both of you.
It is grounded in facts, public records, and documented law. It names the specific legal tools available to you. It documents the specific occasions on which you have chosen not to act.
And it asks the only question that matters:
When the law is clear, the authority is established, the violations are documented, and the harm is ongoing — what exactly are you waiting for?
WHEN POWER THREATENED THE POWERLESS
On a Tuesday afternoon in July 2025, approximately 50 tenants from 10 federally subsidized housing complexes across San Francisco marched to your office, Mayor Lurie.
They carried a letter — nearly five feet tall — detailing their living conditions: pest infestations, toxic mold, structural decay, broken plumbing, failing electrical systems, and years of ignored repair requests.
“These conditions are not only inhumane, they are life-threatening.”
They came to you — not as activists, but as residents, elders, families.
And your office responded with a warning.
According to video documentation, a member of your staff told those tenants that if they did not step outside, the situation would be “escalated.”
Let that be understood for what it was:
People living in unsafe, publicly subsidized housing came to their mayor for help — and were met with a threat.
This was not their first attempt.
Months earlier, resident organizer Maika Pinkston handed you that same letter in person. You told her you would read it.
She never received a response.
After a 30-minute standoff, your staff accepted the letter and promised follow-up.
You did eventually visit Alice Griffith.
But the property had been cleaned in advance. You saw what management wanted you to see. You left. And the conditions returned almost immediately.
Tenants never heard from you again.
This is not governance. This is theater.
And while these residents waited, your administration moved forward with new development deals — including one with Related California — a company whose tenants in Hunters Point were still dealing with missing windows and unsafe living conditions.
A tenant stood on the steps of City Hall and asked:
“Why is Bayview, Fillmore, and Alice Griffith being ignored? Why do we have to beg for our voices to be heard?”
That question is still unanswered.
MAYOR DANIEL LURIE — YOU CANNOT CLAIM POWERLESSNESS WHILE EXERCISING POWER
Mayor Lurie, you told me you have “limited authority.”
That statement is legally incorrect.
Under California law and the City’s own regulatory framework, when public funds are disbursed through housing agreements, the City does not merely have influence — it retains enforcement authority, compliance oversight, and the power to terminate for breach.
Your own Mayor’s Office of Housing and Community Development (MOHCD) agreements explicitly state the City’s authority to:
Monitor ownership and management
Enforce compliance
Impose sanctions
Terminate contracts
Debar non-compliant operators
You are not a bystander. You are the financier, the contract-holder, and the regulator.
And at this stage, the City cannot claim lack of notice.
The volume of inspections, violations, hearings, and direct tenant communication establishes constructive knowledge as a matter of law.
You have the authority to act. You have had the information to act. You have chosen not to act.
Instead:
You conducted a pre-coordinated site visit
You accepted surface-level conditions as reality
You continued contracting with the same operators
This is not limited authority. This is a refusal to use authority.
You campaigned on fighting poverty.
But the residents of Alice Griffith, Plaza East, Hunters Point, and the Fillmore are not abstractions.
They are living in conditions your administration funds and permits.
You cannot claim powerlessness while signing contracts. You cannot claim distance while exercising control.
The authority is yours. The decision not to use it is yours.
CITY ATTORNEY DAVID CHIU — YOU WROTE THE LAW…NOW ENFORCE IT
City Attorney Chiu, your record is not in question.
You authored AB 1482 — one of the most significant tenant protection laws in modern California history.
Your office has aggressively enforced housing laws across San Francisco.
You have sued landlords for:
5 Notices of Violation
Rodent infestations
Mold
Lack of heat
Unsafe units
You have secured millions of dollars in penalties.
The legal standard your office has applied in prior cases — repeated violations, failure to correct, and ongoing tenant harm — has already been met here many times over.
Now consider Alice Griffith:
129+ failed inspections in one year
23 active DBI complaints
Multiple missed Director’s Hearings
Orders of abatement and recorded liens
Tenants report sewage backups, structural decay, and persistent infestations.
A property manager described the smell in one building as “the smell of dying rats.”
And yet:
You have filed nothing.
No lawsuit.
No injunction.
No public nuisance action.
No Unfair Competition enforcement.
Nothing.
When enforcement is applied aggressively against smaller landlords but withheld from large, city-funded operators with far more extensive violations, the issue is no longer capacity — it is consistency.
This raises a fundamental question:
Why are the largest violators receiving the least enforcement?
You have the tools:
Public nuisance doctrine
Business & Professions Code §17200
Civil Code §§1941–1942
Municipal code enforcement
Injunctive authority
The law is not the barrier. The will is.
THE 530 SANSOME DEAL — REWARDING NON-COMPLIANCE
While these violations persist, Mayor Lurie, your administration advanced a new development at 530 Sansome Street with Related California.
This occurred while:
Tenants reported unsafe living conditions
Repairs remained incomplete
Accountability had not been established
In any regulatory system, continued eligibility for public contracts is supposed to be conditioned on compliance — not insulated from it.
Instead, the message to tenants is unmistakable:
Violations do not disqualify you from public contracts. They are tolerated alongside them.
WHAT ACCOUNTABILITY LOOKS LIKE — RIGHT NOW
These are not policy proposals. These are existing authorities that can be executed immediately under current law.
For City Attorney David Chiu:
Open formal investigations into all relevant properties
File public nuisance and §17200 actions
Seek immediate injunctive relief
Enforce penalties up to $1,000/day per violation
Investigate potential fraud tied to public funding
For Mayor Daniel Lurie:
Order immediate MOHCD compliance audits
Impose a moratorium on new contracts
Enforce debarment authority
Conduct unannounced inspections
Establish a 90-day enforcement deadline
Include qualified community-based developers in future projects
THE RECORD IS COMPLETE
Parts 1 and 2 documented the harm. Part 3 establishes the legal case for action.
The threshold for action has already been exceeded.
The law is clear.
The authority is established.
The violations are documented.
The precedent is set.
The harm is ongoing.
Mayor Lurie — you have the authority.
City Attorney Chiu — you have the legal framework and enforcement history.
Both of you have the knowledge.
Your silence is not ignorance. Your silence is a choice.
And choices have consequences.
The tenants of Alice Griffith, Plaza East, and Hunters Point are not asking for miracles.
They are asking for what the law already requires — and what you already have the power to enforce.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Malik Washington is an investigative journalist and co-founder of Destination Freedom Media Group, an independent nonprofit newsroom dedicated to accountability reporting at the intersection of civil rights, public integrity, disability justice, structural accountability within American institutions, and community survival. He has been a published journalist for over 14 years.
His work—published in partnership with the Davis Vanguard—focuses on government power, criminal justice, environmental justice, and the human consequences of policy decisions too often insulated from public scrutiny. Washington’s reporting amplifies the voices of impacted communities while insisting on documentary evidence, transparency, and the unvarnished truth—especially when institutions demand silence.
His work appears on platforms such as Muck Rack and Black Voice News, examining the intersection of justice, governance, and community.
You can reach him via email: mwashington2059@gmail.com or call him at (719) 715-9592.
Facebook: facebook.com/destfreedom13
Instagram: @destinationfreedom13
X: @dest_freedom
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
Categories: Breaking News San Francisco Tags: Daniel Lurie David Chiu housing violations public housing accountability San Francisco Housing tenant rights