SF tenants have no way to know their building's code violation history before signing a lease

You tour a beautiful 1BR in a 1920s building in the Haight. Fresh paint, new appliances. You sign the lease. Two months later, you discover: the building has 14 open DBI (Department of Building Inspection) complaints, the unit below you had a sewage backup last year, the building failed its most recent fire inspection, and your unit has an unpermitted bathroom addition that technically makes it an illegal unit. All of this information exists in SF public records — DBI complaints, fire inspection reports, housing inspection records — but it is scattered across 3-4 different city databases, none of which are linked to rental listings, and none of which are easy to search. So what? You made a $40K+ annual commitment (rent) without knowing the building is a maintenance disaster. Mold, pest infestations, structural issues, and fire safety violations are all knowable before signing if you could access the data. But the data is effectively hidden: DBI complaints are searchable by address but the interface is from 2003 and returns raw permit data that requires expertise to interpret. Fire inspection results are not online. Housing inspection reports require a FOIA request. Landlords have no obligation to disclose code violations. Why does this persist in the first place? SF's building data is managed by DBI, SFFD (fire), and DPH (health) in separate systems that do not talk to each other. The city has no 'building health score' or unified property report. Landlords actively benefit from information asymmetry — a building with 14 open complaints rents at the same price as a well-maintained building because tenants cannot tell the difference until after move-in.