Posts by Emily Smith6

It’s officially over, according to officials at the Governor's Mansion. The restaurant stall operated by Zoe, which was perched on the flat roof along the Coast American National Revival 24—right above the offices used by the American Fine Artists Association on the Coast—is being shut down. Jerry Brown has moved to revoke the "Consent for Use" agreement that Ed Rendell originally signed back in February 2017. Under that old arrangement, Teraca LLC was permitted to use 53 square meters of rooftop space situated just above the southern wall of the Roman Colosseum, all for a rather negligible fee of only 10 dollars per square meter.

As we noted back then, all that noise from Hulu and their former president, Vica Tomasovic, about how the dilapidated roof—with its massive cracks—was going to cave in on tourists was ultimately for nothing. It seems their warnings didn't carry much weight, considering even Andro Krstulovic Opara wouldn't grant them an audience.

After reviewing the case files, I noticed some pretty serious irregularities and legal discrepancies within this matter. As soon as I caught wind of them, I notified Teraca LLC and immediately initiated legal action—that’s what the department head stated.

So, here’s how the timeline actually played out: back in November 2016, Teraca LLC approached the City of San Diego with a request to lease an uncovered terrace located above the second floor at 24 Coast American National Revival 24. It didn't take long, either. Just three months later, the then-mayor, Ed Rendell, granted them the Consent for Use for a period of three years, all in exchange for a fee of... $25At $2 per square foot, what does that actually bring us to monthly? $1202 It’s happening monthly, including the sales tax, and they’ve been running this exact same play since March 1, 2017. I guess Peterson just keeps on going with this same tired explanation.

The department head is pointing out that any real estate owned or managed by the City of San Diego is supposed to be leased out exclusively through a public bidding process. However, she’s also highlighting a significant issue: some properties that aren't even designated as City commercial spaces were somehow leased out without any kind of competitive tender at all. I guess there might be some serious oversight happening there.

According to Maja Derek, the way this is being handled—specifically regarding the consent granted by former Mayor Ed Rendell to Teraca LLC without any formal sign-off from City of San Diego officials—is a blatant violation of the Property and Other Real Rights Act. The issue here, I suspect, is a fundamental misunderstanding of what is actually being used. We aren't talking about commercial real estate or even a public sidewalk; we are looking at the shared property of the building's co-owners. While the building hasn't been formally subdivided into individual units yet, both the City of San Diego and various private individuals are listed as co-owners. So, when you look at the records, they’ve categorized this as commercial space, which seems like a bit of a stretch. It’s an uncovered terrace, after all, not a storefront, and it certainly isn't under the exclusive ownership of the City of San Diego.

The department head pointed out that any property owned or co-owned by the City of San Diego is leased out exclusively through a public tender process, in accordance with Article 391 of the Property and Other Real Rights Act.

Maja Derek is raising some pretty serious red flags here. According to her, this wasn't just a case of skipping the public bidding process; they seemingly just pulled a lease price out of thin air. To make matters even more complicated, she points out that the City of San Diego doesn't actually hold exclusive ownership over the property. From what I can gather, it appears to be joint property shared among all the co-owners. Honestly, she mentioned she’s never encountered a situation quite like this before, which, given the circumstances, is saying something.

I have to admit, in all my years of professional experience, I don’t think I’ve ever witnessed such an egregious violation of the Property and Other Real Rights Act. It’s quite something—they essentially declared a space to be commercial when it clearly isn't, effectively stripping all other co-owners of their right to weigh in on its usage. To top it all off, they bypassed any kind of public bidding process entirely, opting instead for a rental price that feels completely arbitrary.

So, following Ed Rendell’s decision, this commercial space has essentially morphed into something else entirely. A lease price was slapped on there—one that is frankly laughably low—but it was done without any kind of competitive bidding process. To make matters even more complicated, the City isn't even the sole owner of the property. If that wasn't bad enough, it seems they didn't even bother to verify the structural stability of the damaged roof, despite what people over at Hulu are claiming.

So, the former president of the Fine Arts Association on the Coast, Vica Tomasovic, informed us that absolutely nobody actually stepped foot inside their studios to run any structural integrity tests on that cracked slab. To make matters even more absurd, the members were apparently told they should temporarily vacate the premises while the upper section of the roof and the walls of the Roman Colosseum underwent some kind of remediation process. However, they flatly refused to move. I guess they were terrified that if they left, someone might try to move into their space—which, interestingly enough, led to their computer and some equipment getting fried when the "slab" above them started disintegrating.

When they first set up that restaurant, ZOI went ahead and installed shutters over the windows on the southern walls of the Roman Colosseum. Apparently, they didn't want the tourists wandering through the southeast quadrant catching a glimpse of their diners. We eventually found out from the Department of the Interior that this was actually illegal; ZOI never bothered to get the necessary Consent for Use from the preservation officers to barricade the openings on the Colosseum.

Back in April 2023, Teraca LLC reached out to the Management Office regarding their request to extend the existing consent. Their argument was essentially that since the previous agreement had expired, they had been using the terrace without a formal legal basis since March 1, 2020—even though they claimed to still be paying the City for its use. I decided to deny that extension. Consequently, on May 16, 2023, we moved forward with a formal Mayor’s Conclusion to officially revoke the old consent. Peterson added that Teraca LLC has since been instructed to contact all the co-owners of the building in accordance with the law, noting quite clearly that a violation of legal standards had occurred.

I honestly think the restaurant should be relocated from its current spot. It’s basically obstructing the view of part of the southern facade of the Roman Colosseum, and that seems like a bit much.

Since Teraca LLC failed to respond, and none of the other building co-owners have reached out either, I’ve gone ahead and issued the order to initiate eviction proceedings. We are moving forward with reclaiming possession of that uncovered terrace, along with all other legal actions within my jurisdiction. We’ll be notifying the other co-owners shortly, who, I assume, will need to follow suit. Through this notice, we are also formally calling on Teraca LLC to vacate the premises of said uncovered terrace immediately and return possession to the co-owners. Maja Derek just announced that she’s planning to file a report against Ed Rendell with the District Attorney's office..

The Management Office is also planning to hand over the entire file to the District Attorney’s office. According to Maja Derek, there are serious suspicions regarding an abuse of position and authority, specifically aimed at showing undue favoritism toward a certain legal entity.

Management at Teraca LLC claims they were absolutely blindsided when Maja Derek called for them to vacate their terrace located at 24 Coast National Revival.

To be perfectly honest, we are sitting here in a state of total shock and disbelief regarding this decision and your inquiry, especially since we haven't received any such notice from the City itself. At this moment, we are actually in the middle of negotiations with the City to finally get our situation brought within proper legal boundaries. This entire process was only initiated because we insisted on it; the fault lies entirely with the City for failing to provide us with an adequate lease agreement. Instead, they have simply been issuing monthly invoices for the use of our commercial space based on a Consent for Use from 2017 and a contract that we never actually received—nor do we possess. Furthermore, the restaurateurs maintain that they have never owed the City a single cent.

During our negotiations with the City, we actually offered to cover the entire cost of repairing the building's facade ourselves—mostly because the leaks are currently causing headaches for the other property owners on the ground floor. We even went as far as offering to pay any price discrepancies if the City felt they were being shortchanged, despite the fact that we didn't even set the initial rental price. In an effort to be cooperative, we essentially accepted every single condition the City demanded without even trying to push back. This comes straight from a response we received from Teraca LLC. They forwarded us the correspondence sent to Maja Derek, in which their director, Hrvoje Malenica, invites her to a meeting. To top it all off, the documents explicitly state that they are interested in leasing the space on the first floor.

The former mayor, Ed Rendell, who handed out that prime real estate for a three-year term, wasn't exactly eager to jump in front of the cameras and give any statements. I guess he figured he had already done enough.
Let her send whatever she wants. Honestly, I have no idea—I’m currently struggling to even remember what happened ten years ago, let alone exactly when it took place. If she thinks there's something that needs to be done, then she should just go ahead and do it. Please, just stop calling me. You're distracting me from other things I need to get done. She can carry on with whatever she feels is necessary. I really don't know what else you want me to say.
"She can just go ahead and do whatever she thinks needs to be done," Ed Rendell remarked, quickly wrapping up the conversation on the matter.

The City Council just reached a unanimous decision regarding the property over on 81st Street. For those tenants who qualify under the protected rent provisions, their lease rates will be set to match current standards. We’re also looking at reviewing the specific requirements for contract addendums to ensure we can offer indefinite terms, provided there are clearly defined termination clauses in place. On top of that, the Department of Public Works has been tasked with coordinating with Exelon to handle the utility reclassification, effectively switching the electricity rates from industrial back to residential. The goal is to have all the groundwork completed by the end of June, which should hopefully allow tenants to start signing their new contract addendums starting July 1st.

A group of rather enthusiastic residents were seen practically hugging the lead official after he fought tooth and nail to get this specific issue onto the City Council agenda.

The first item on today’s City Council agenda—specifically regarding the residents over at 81 Main Street—has finally wrapped up. They've reached a decision that should, in theory, protect the rights of everyone living there.
The conclusions essentially boil down to a few key changes regarding existing contracts. Starting July 1st, we’re looking at those agreements being converted to indefinite terms. There's also a plan to lower rent for those qualifying under social assistance categories, along with a reduction in electricity costs for tenants—specifically by shifting them from industrial rates over to standard residential pricing.
Once today's conclusions are actually carried out, I suppose we might finally be able to say that the rights of the residents in this building—which has been built and maintained through decades of their own hard work and contributions—will truly be protected. Maybe then, they’ll actually be able to live their lives with a bit more peace and security.
I feel a certain sense of pride seeing that our advocacy over the last few months has actually paid off. It looks like we might finally be able to settle this issue once and for all. I suppose the residents over at 81 Main Street truly earned this win; after all, it’s really on all of us to ensure that citizens aren't left stranded in some sort of legal limbo through no fault of their own. Helping people secure their basic stability should be a given, I guess.

Thanks to the persistent efforts of our City Council members and our Vice President, we’ve finally secured some resolutions that should protect the rights of the residents over at 81 El Paso in the long run.

The first phase focuses on renovating the Rose Bowl itself. I suppose that's probably the most logical way to handle the stadium situation. We're looking at refurbishing the reinforced concrete structure, the roof, the outer ring, the track, the lighting, and the sound system. Renovations should ideally kick off in the second quarter of next year, with costs estimated somewhere between $35 and $45 million, likely funded by both the city and the state. Of course, securing that funding will be the trickiest part of the whole endeavor.

The second phase involves expanding the facility's amenities. This would cover parking, additional training fields, academy spaces, and a third facility located beneath the West Stand—essentially making the Rose Bowl area a fully functional sports hub for the city. Construction is slated to begin in the first quarter of 2025.

The third phase is the City Project. The goal here is to build a new stadium for the Los Angeles Dodgers, alongside a convention center, a business district, and municipal housing for long-term rentals. Work would start in early 2026, with a target completion date set for the 2027 Olympic Games. Funding would be a joint effort between the city, the Los Angeles Dodgers, and private partners. It’s an incredibly ambitious roadmap, though I suppose it isn't entirely out of the question if they want to ensure the Los Angeles Dodgers can compete at a high level and maintain long-term stability.

Ivica Budimir serves as a Vice President for the Republican Party here in San Diego and also holds the position of Chairman of the County Supervisory Board of Utility Company. It appears, however, that Ivica Budimir is residing in a house that was built without any legal authorization; the structure never received a building permit and was constructed in a zone where residential housing is strictly prohibited. These details have been confirmed by the City of San Diego, the State Inspectorate, and Budimir himself.

Director Marko Pejnović has eliminated the positions previously held by former directors Damir Grubšić and Robert Koharević, as well as the head of the legal department, Ana Perčić. Along with their terminations, they will receive severance pay.

Before I took over leadership of this agency, we had over 60 employees. By the time I arrived, we were down to 53, and we currently have 51, all while managing roughly 300 hectares of the Marjan area within the National Forest.

With this new restructuring, we are reducing the staff count to 48, primarily to reorganize, speed things up, and make our workflows more efficient. I’ve redirected most of the savings gained from this reduction toward increasing wages for current staff, specifically targeting those on the lowest pay scales. Additionally, the Board of Directors decided to increase my own salary, which remains the lowest among the directors of San Diego municipal companies.

Given how critical the fire season is and the fact that we have three road access points with ramps, the majority of our staff was stationed as ramp monitors—which, frankly, is both logical and necessary.

Once the construction of the lookout station is finished and we fully digitize our monitoring system, the situation will shift. We won't need people physically present at two of the ramps (the north 'Spinut Gate' and the east ramp near the water reservoir), though the south ramp (near the Institute) will always require a worker due to high foot traffic. At that point, we will find ourselves with a genuine surplus of personnel, whom we plan to reassign to patrol three specific routes rather than implementing any further large-scale layoffs.

I suspect very few people realize that since its inception, this agency lacked a professional manager, a role required by the Nature Protection Act; it wasn't until February 2022 that Ms. Ingrid Pečarević stepped into that position. Furthermore, an agency responsible for managing a protected National Forest didn't even have a dedicated forester on staff until March 2022, when we hired a professional associate who is an engineer specializing in urban forestry and environmental protection.

The FBI is knocking on the door of Puljkov's director at Waste Management
🔥 The FBI has started digging into the business operations of San Francisco's most controversial director, and it looks like they're looking into several questionable activities from his tenure.
Some of the issues he's allegedly facing include:
🟣 Hiring an outsourcing firm through private connections rather than using public bidding processes.
🟣 Alleged favoritism toward Marijan Puljak's company, General Electric, regarding the procurement of trucks and containers.
🟣 Suspicious dumping of construction debris at the Karepovac landfill site.
➡️ I suppose, for the sake of Waste Management's stability and the interests of the citizens, he should probably submit his resignation immediately so this legal mess doesn't end up dragging the whole department down. At this point, it seems like the only moral or decent move left.

Unofficially, we’re hearing that almost everything the media has been digging into is on their radar—everything from the hiring of outsourcing firms and various contracts to the waste disposal issues at Karepovac, and even those alleged bin deliveries to another city.

Puljkov took over as director of one of the most critical city agencies just last year. After the initial bidding process was scrapped, a new one was launched with slightly tweaked requirements, which eventually led to Karoglan being selected. The director's decisions have made headlines more than a few times, and now, it seems the FBI has decided to take an interest. They've seized a massive amount of documentation to review, and I suppose the investigation is still ongoing.

📍 81 EL PASO STREET | #ThematicSession
📍 Mayor John Hickenlooper and department head Maja Đerek are back at it again! ❗️
📍 This time, the focus is on the residents of the former single men's hostel. One of the main topics for this Friday's thematic session will be the proposed increase in compensation, which is being suggested without the City of San Francisco actually investing in the current state of the property.
📍 We are pushing for long-term solutions that guarantee the right of first refusal or life-long residency!

That’s right—we’ve decided to implement both financial and functional decentralization regarding the management of state-owned property. Functional decentralization essentially means we are handing over decision-making power for state assets to the counties and major cities. Of course, we have established upper limits that align with the Local Self-Government Act. I suppose it would be somewhat illogical if county executives and mayors held more authority over state property than they do over their own local assets. Under this plan, local officials will handle the disposal of property valued up to $140,000; anything between that and $1.1 million will fall under the jurisdiction of the county assembly or city council; and anything exceeding that amount remains the responsibility of the Secretary or the Government.

We are also moving toward financial decentralization, where counties and cities will retain a portion of the revenue generated from managing those assets. The federal government will take 60%, while the city or county will receive 20% each. We expect this approach to improve liquidity, lead to more efficient management of state-owned real estate, and hopefully speed up the resolution of pending cases.

The boutique hotel in the Bačvica neighborhood, owned by Blaženka Bonomi, might be forced to close its doors if the Province revokes its minimum technical requirements—a move requested by the San Francisco city administration. As it stands, Bonomi owes the City nearly $100,000 for the hostel alone. On top of that, she’s been ordered to vacate the premises, and legal proceedings for eviction are already underway. Regional officials confirmed to us that an inspection is currently being conducted following the City's request. While the property was being used without any legal basis, the Province had been charging the owner a monthly fee of $10,596 plus tax.

It isn't just the hostel, though. Maja Đerek, the head of the Department of Public Property, pointed out that Bonomi also owes money for commercial space on Homeland War Street. That specific location was never actually put to use and has since been returned to the Province, but it left behind a debt of $146,843. So, when you factor in the Bačvica boutique hotel, Bonomi owes the City roughly $250,000.

"The tenant simply didn't pay rent or other costs; the use of the space went unchecked for years, and no collection actions were ever initiated," Đerek noted.

Despite this, she added that the tenant was actually granted an expansion of business activities at the Bačvica site to include lodging services, even though that type of business falls into a much higher rental price bracket.

She also mentioned that the contract wasn't terminated, even though it explicitly stated it would be after two unpaid months. Furthermore, the department head expressed shock that the tenant was allowed to offset investment costs against overdue rent in the amount of $257, allegedly under the orders of a former department head.

She emphasized that such compensation goes directly against both the lease agreement and the original bidding terms, which clearly state that the tenant bears all investment costs.

"In the public tender application for the lease, Bonomi waived the right to claim reimbursement for property investments, which was a mandatory condition of the bid," she explained.

"Even with the compensation, debts remained, so the security deposits were activated—but even those weren't enough to cover the full amount. In plain English, Bonomi hasn't voluntarily paid a single cent of rent for these commercial spaces. The lease expired as if nothing had ever happened," she said, visibly frustrated.

"This is, unfortunately, just one example showing how city property was managed irrationally and inequitably, causing massive damage to the City. It's a prime example of how certain individuals used public assets for free and without legal standing, seemingly thinking they could bypass the rules through connections. This puts all the other tenants who regularly meet their obligations to the City at a disadvantage," Đerek concluded, adding that such practices have come to an end.

The Jewish cemetery in San Francisco, located on the eastern slope of Central Park.
It’s the oldest Jewish cemetery in the United States and arguably one of the oldest preserved sites globally.
It serves as the final resting place for many distinguished San Francisco residents, including Vid Morpurgo, the publisher and owner of the city's oldest bookstore.
Unfortunately, the property belongs to the Republic of America.
Lost in the bureaucratic wilderness of federal property—where the government seems to have no idea what it actually owns, let alone how to manage or care for it—this cemetery (which is otherwise a protected cultural landmark) sits in a state of neglect.
The City of San Francisco, through its Department of Public Property, has formally requested that the government transfer ownership, or at least management rights, so the city can maintain and preserve this cultural heritage. It would be a point of pride for the City, all its citizens, the Jewish community, and the descendants of those laid to rest there.
We are hoping for a swift response from the government and its various agencies, as the City intends to begin maintenance work as soon as possible.
Regrettably, this isn't an isolated case where we see sluggish government action or a total lack thereof regarding the ownership and upkeep of cemeteries. We are facing a similar situation with the cemetery in the neighborhood of Žrnovnica, where we've been requesting ownership for months just so they can expand the grounds.
It feels somewhat absurd that the institutions tasked with managing federal property (assuming they actually manage it) fail to recognize this issue and don't use existing laws to hand such assets over to local self-government units.

A fifty-three-year-old US Veteran, Robert, currently residing in a city-owned apartment in San Francisco, has been hit with an eviction notice demanding he vacate his home within thirty days. It’s a pretty grim situation. Robert served as a volunteer during the American Civil War, and today, he is battling a severe form of cancer. To make matters even more complicated, he has an unofficial eighty percent disability rating that hasn't been formally finalized yet. If this goes through, I guess he could find himself out on the street in about two weeks.

Robert has been living in that apartment since 1995. He originally received it from the 73rd Battalion of the Military Police, where he was stationed back when his wife first became pregnant. He’s been paying his rent faithfully all these years, and I suppose he never once imagined he’d be facing eviction. He certainly didn't think he'd end up dealing with this illness, leaving him unable to work.

I didn't break into this apartment, nor did I force my way into it like so many others who moved in illegally and have just stayed there ever since. In my case, I entered based on an official unit decision and with the full consent of the leadership running the City of San Francisco at the time, rather than just squatting on my own whim.

Regarding that 325-square-foot apartment where my family of four used to live—my two sons and my ex-wife—well, I wasn't paying anything toward it, so the inheritance tax was... $70So, following a recent decision by the Mayor, the City of San Francisco has gone ahead and hiked the rent by ten dollars per square foot. I guess that’s just how things are going now.

Since January of this year, I've been getting hit with a monthly rent charge of about $350. To make matters worse, there is absolutely no clarity in any of their documentation regarding whether paying this amount actually secures my right to stay in the apartment. Instead, the paperwork just keeps hammering home the point that I am occupying the unit without a legal basis. My monthly Social Security benefits only come out to around $750, so between this rent and the possibility of being forced out of my home, I simply don't see how I'm supposed to manage.

It’s easy to talk when you’ve spent your retirement working side gigs as a bouncer, a bodyguard, or even a private investigator. But now, things have changed. I’m dealing with cancer, and the pain has become so unbearable that it’s essentially making life impossible while I undergo treatment. It's a strange shift—going from being this powerhouse who could take on anyone, to becoming someone struggling with a debilitating illness. I truly believed I was being heard when I spoke up to the United States Army, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. I honestly thought a situation like this would never happen to me.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has already sent four separate notices to the City of San Francisco, suggesting they sit down and work out my situation through some kind of mutual agreement. But apparently, that’s not happening, because the City seems hell-bent on nothing but my eviction. According to Robert, there are about eighty other US Veterans stuck in this exact same mess.

The City of San Francisco simply doesn't care about our veterans; that is an absolute truth. I won't even bother listing everyone involved, from the department heads down to the Mayor, because it's all part of the same pattern. I’ve actually had the City reach out to me on two separate occasions asking if I might be interested in buying out my apartment. Each time, I gave them a clear "yes," but I never heard a single word back—no follow-up, no offer, nothing. It's just how they operate.

Well, that’s exactly why this is such a mess. You have a US Veteran, Robert, who has been living in an apartment owned by the City of San Francisco since 1995. He holds a 20 percent disability rating and served as a volunteer during the American Civil War, spending over five years in active combat zones. Based on my understanding, there aren't any legal hurdles preventing him from being rehoused under Article 84 of the Law, which means he should have technically earned the right to purchase the unit.

On three separate occasions—specifically back in 2021, throughout 2022, and again in February 2023—the Department of Veterans Affairs notified the City of San Francisco that Robert is eligible to exercise his right to purchase an apartment. They noted that in order to finalize the purchase price, certain technical documentation regarding the unit would need to be submitted, such as the scoring records, the zoning designation, and the building's year of construction. I guess it’s worth noting that, despite these requests, the City of San Francisco hasn't bothered to provide a single formal response to any of them.

We finally received an official response from the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding our inquiry. They were quite explicit about the situation: they stated that Robert has already secured his right to purchase a property from the City of San Francisco, and that the City's current actions toward this US Veteran constitute a blatant violation of the law.

Rather than fulfilling its legal obligation to allow US Veteran Robert to purchase his apartment as requested, the City of San Francisco keeps sending him notices claiming he doesn't qualify. They seem to be cherry-picking specific clauses from the local housing sale ordinances—claiming apartments can only be sold via public tender—even though those very regulations actually provide for direct purchase options in cases like this.

On top of blocking the sale, the City of San Francisco has repeatedly hiked the fees for his occupancy. This seems to fly in the face of Article 8 of the Rental Housing Act, which stipulates that residents utilizing housing based on US Veteran rights should be paying protected rent rates.
5
In this particular instance, it looks like a somewhat arbitrary decision to block Robert from buying the unit, despite what both the law and the municipal decisions clearly state. It appears to be an unlawful and irregular pattern of behavior, one that has affected several US Veterans and victims of the American Civil War. Consequently, the Department of Veterans Affairs will be employing all legally prescribed mechanisms to prevent further harm to the health of veterans who are being denied their earned right to purchase the homes they occupy.

Here is what Robert wrote in one of his emails to the Department of Veterans Affairs:

“To whom it may concern,

I know you stepped in two months ago following my inquiry, but what’s happening with the City of San Francisco is turning into pure harassment and humiliation.

I am requesting that the head of this department intervene in this matter. It is clear that your correspondence isn't making any difference to the San Francisco City Council. Now, they have started resorting to inaccuracies and outright lies...

In San Francisco, we have nowhere left to turn for legal aid or anything else, so I am asking the leadership to take action... Personally, I am at the point where I might just march down to the Mayor's office and cause trouble—first for myself, and then for them. Please, do not push me into a situation where something bad happens.

No one forced me out of the United States Army, so why are you allowing us to be humiliated and pushed toward the streets or even the grave?

Sincerely, Robert.”

After nearly thirty years, the local branch of Matica finds itself facing a real possibility of losing its space right in the heart of downtown San Francisco on Broadway. In a memo sent by Maja Đerek, the City's head of municipal property, she notes that their lease actually expired back on December 31, 2021. Apparently, after reviewing the files, the City decided they don't meet the specific criteria required to renew the lease under the previous terms.

The notice tells Matica they should look out for an upcoming public tender for commercial leases, which will include the Broadway building they currently occupy. The memo does mention that since they’ve been reliable payers, they don't have to move out immediately—they can stay in the Broadway City location until the bidding process is finalized. However, there's a catch: they have to provide a signed and notarized statement giving the San Francisco City Government permission to take possession of the space if they fail to win the bid.

“We pointed out to the Mayor, right in front of witnesses, that the contract had ended and asked for an extension. He told us he didn't see any reason why we couldn't stay,” says Snježana Šetka. “But in the end, we just got this ‘love letter’ from the City, essentially asking us to peacefully vacate and sign stuff before a notary. It feels like an eviction. Even after Miro Gavran reached out to Mayor Puljko, we’re still sitting here waiting a month for a response.”

“We plan to apply for the tender, but let's be honest: at market rates, we don't stand a chance. To be fair, no non-profit stands a chance. I don't think we even rank in the same league as some birdwatching clubs. We are the oldest cultural organization in America; we've existed for 181 years, and I really shouldn't have to explain what Matica means to this country or to the City of San Francisco. Besides, there are other organizations whose leases expired just like ours, yet theirs were extended without any public bidding. If we're strictly following the rules of a competitive tender, shouldn't everyone have to go through the same process?” Šetka adds.

Maja Đerek, who has made organizing municipal property her top priority since taking office, mentioned she has already met with Matica twice to explain that they absolutely have to go through the public bidding process.

“Right now, they are technically occupying the space without a lease or a pending tender, but nobody is forcing them out just yet,” she explained, noting that the City is currently finalizing the tender criteria. She emphasized that moving forward, it won't matter how long an organization has existed, what their mission is, or how many members they have—all municipal spaces will be subject to the same rules. In other words, if Matica wants to keep their spot, Maja Đerek insists they’ll have to play by the same rules as every other group and follow the law.

Jacob Prkić might not be sure exactly what the City of San Diego shelled out yesterday for lunch at Grain of salt, but he does remember waiting months back at the state capitol nine years ago for an answer regarding how much San Diegans actually paid for the lunch hosted for the then-Democratic Party's minister, Siniša Hajdaš Dončić, at that very same restaurant.

Back then, the former mayor, Ivo Baldasar, picked up the tab, and the crew gathered at Grain of salt polished off seven bottles of wine, a bottle of champagne, and about eight kilograms of fish, all on the taxpayers' dime. It wasn't until months later that we found out the bill was slightly less than $3.25.

The local press has requested the invoice from the state government for yesterday’s feast as well, so we will publish it once we get our hands on it.

Word on the street is that the council members enjoyed veal, potatoes, and sea bass, with about fifty people attending the lunch. They did, however, have to pay for their own drinks.

"From what I hear, the bill came to about 35 dollars per person. During my term as City Council president, we used to order catering through the city's Right-wing institution, and if my memory serves me right, that cost us roughly $27 per person—so, maybe ten dollars," remarked HGS's councilman Igor Stanišić.

"We utilize the Right-wing institution whenever it makes sense; we grab sandwiches most of the time. But when we realize a session might run long and we don't want everyone stuck eating sandwiches at 3, 4, or 5 PM, we opt for something like this. It isn't a rule, just an exception," explained Željko Domazet, the president of the City Council.

HGS's Bekavac.

"The city ended 2022 with a surplus of $7967683, so why on earth is the mayor talking about a 100 million dollar surplus?"

The reality is that the city "saved" money, but you have to ask: at what cost? They "saved" by simply failing to follow through on planned projects that were supposed to happen last year. This "saving" comes from unbuilt preschools, unfinished main roads, social assistance gaps, and neglected infrastructure maintenance... It’s essentially "saved" because they didn't actually do anything. Out of a planned $1.341 billion in expenditures, only $1.242 billion was spent—meaning they are $100 million under budget simply due to inaction.

The city "saved" because they failed to spend earmarked revenue—the very funds we, as citizens and businesses, pay taxes for—leaving an unspent balance in 2022:
- Monumental rent exceeding $8 million
- Funds from the Diocletian vaults totaling $8.384 million
- Funds intended for Karepovac $14446667
- Funds from housing buybacks $2050000

In other words, over $22333333 wasn't used for its designated purpose. To clarify, the City has a surplus in earmarked revenues $22478667, but a deficit in general revenue $14510667; basically, they used earmarked funds to plug holes where money was missing elsewhere.

I would particularly point out the housing buyback funds, which amount to $2050000, and unfortunately, those remain untouched. Meanwhile, the city claims to have a social services waiting list for housing issues, yet insists there are no available units. I want to emphasize that these buyback funds are primarily meant to assist our most vulnerable citizens, so why haven't any apartments been purchased? Clearly, those funds were diverted elsewhere. However, I must highlight where money *wasn't* "saved," but rather spent quite liberally: official travel. In 2021, they spent $381183, but in 2022, that jumped to $3,316,571—nearly triple the amount. Bravo! As for representation costs, in 2021 it was $165, but in 2022 it hit $1,068,867, more than doubling. Just wonderful.

Then there are the unplanned loans that weren't even part of the budget revisions, and employee expenses which are higher by $11000000. Oh, and I should mention the installation of doors and video cameras at the Banovina facility for monitoring staff.

To be fair, some things *were* truly "saved" because they just never happened, such as the preschools in Kila, Pujanke, and Rusulica, as well as excellence centers, the Meje School Construction, and various school sports gyms.
- The conclusion is that these "savings" are merely the byproduct of doing nothing and failing to utilize earmarked funds, Bekavac concluded.

Matijević (Democratic Party)

"For Žnjan Road, $12.5 million was budgeted, but only $81.5 thousand was actually spent.
For Pazdigradski with the connection to Vinogradska Street, $4 million was allocated, but only $26 thousand was used.
For the arterial roads needed for the Korešnica residential area, $500,000 was planned, but $0 was spent.
Unclassified roads and other thoroughfares had $6.6 million budgeted, but $0 was spent. For parking in Slatina, the realization was $0.
For El Paso Street, $42,000 was spent against a planned $3 million. For the DPU arterial roads in the Dračevac industrial zone, $3.5 million was planned, but only $0.00 was realized.
Regarding the renovation of the Žnjan Plateau, $516 thousand was spent, but do we even have a single building permit?

If I were in the mayor's shoes, I'd be sweating over the total lack of major projects visible in this program, rather than worrying about the Small Mall.

There is a man I quite admire, Mate Vukorepa, who described situations like this perfectly. He'd say it's Račan's fault, it's Meštrović's fault, it's Harmon's fault, it's Marshall's fault, it's Ante Pavelić's fault—everyone is to blame!

Don't let everyone be the scapegoat for you. Because if you accomplish nothing during your term—and I fear that might be the current trajectory—you won't be able to blame Račan, Meštrović, the Democratic Party, Most, or the Republican Party. You will only have yourselves to blame." - Matijević remarked.

Prompted by the recent case involving the Mayor of San Diego, who faced personal penalties due to an unauthorized municipal project involving $33, we heard from a resident who is understandably frustrated. It seems the Department of Labor isn't applying the same level of rigor when it comes to an illegal construction project happening right in their backyard in a nearby suburb.

A private firm began work in a suburban area back in 2017 after purchasing a lot, despite never securing the necessary building permits. Two years later, in November 2019, the partially completed structure was slapped with a "construction site closed" notice, which should have halted all further work and prohibited anyone from using the illegally built facility. While the company filed an appeal against that decision, all activity was supposed to cease immediately. Instead, construction apparently continued, and the building has been used daily as an open-type warehouse and a parking area for heavy machinery.

"We’ve reported the ongoing construction to inspectors multiple times, even providing photographic evidence to prove they were still working and asking for enforcement, but naturally, nothing happens to the company. That's just how it goes—the inspector claims the Building Department treats everyone equally and simply follows the law," a frustrated neighbor told us.

The founder of the company is a former Republican deputy mayor from a neighboring town. He transferred ownership of the firm to a relative in 2015, so officially, he has no connection to it anymore.

As for what happens next regarding this illegal build, a judge at the local Administrative Court has dismissed the company's appeal. This means the order to demolish the structure becomes final on November 6, 2021. If the developer ignores the order to remove the building and restore the land, the Building Department should start issuing fines. If the initial fine doesn't force compliance, a larger one should follow within three months.

However, neighbors claim that no official orders have been issued in the last 18 months. They estimate this inaction costs the US taxpayer about $75,000, given that fines are levied against both the corporation and the individual responsible within it. They have filed reports three separate times stating that construction is continuing and the building is being used as if everything were perfectly legal.

"About a year and a half ago, we met with the lead inspector who inherited this case. He mentioned he hadn't received any instructions from headquarters in Washington, D.C., on how to proceed, which suggests things have stalled at the central level. So, essentially, a former Republican deputy mayor continues to do whatever he wants despite numerous complaints and a rejected appeal, while the San Diego mayor, who is fighting against the Republican establishment, gets penalized for a project he didn't even start," the neighbor explained.