[floatingatoll]

The building inspections performed on the previous tenant reported none of these issues. Had they found and reported those issues, as is their job as inspectors, then any potential new tenants could have made a reasoned business decision about necessary improvements. Their negligence as inspectors goes unpunished while the location remains fallow, paying neither sales tax nor income tax.

Is the city liable for the negligence of inspections of the previous business? Were inspectors bribed or pressured to ignore obvious code violations? Were the previous business owners given privileged treatment due to race, wealth, or political connections?

SF has been behaving in this manner for for thirty years. That it continues unchecked in the face of the mayor’s attempts to put a stop to it is newsworthy.

[diogenescynic]

>Were the previous business owners given privileged treatment due to race, wealth, or *political connections?*

Ding ding ding. Many of the property management companies are run by political insiders. For example, Makras... and they're a slumlord because they're connected to the city so they get any complaints thrown out.

[floatingatoll]

Whatever motivated that negligence, my point is that a simple request that seems reasonable - “put in a hood” - is, when considered in context, factual evidence of gross negligence on the part of city inspectors. The city risks being held financially liable for bringing the restaurant up to its own code standards if it fails to enforce those standards over time, no matter the cause of the negligence. I hope that someone someday pursues this to discovery against San Francisco, so that we may better understand the cause.