Posts by Emily Smith6

The City of San Francisco is paying out $46,800 a month to the owner of Magic Piano Preschool! While her revenues are in the millions, parents are apparently looking to the Governor's office for a lifeline.

Just to recap, the founder and owner of the preschool, Virginia Mudric, rents two spaces totaling 663 square meters $4705. Under the new terms, she would be expected to pay $15054 for those premises. This higher amount was actually what was agreed upon during the initial bidding process when she secured the space, but the previous city administration decided to step in and adjust the price—downward, of course.

"Magic Piano Preschool" is a private facility, though the City of San Francisco provides subsidies for the children attending it.

- The City of San Francisco subsidizes childcare at 22 different private and religious preschools within its jurisdiction, including Magic Piano Preschool. The level of subsidy depends on the specific type and duration of the program the child is enrolled in.

For this particular Magic Piano Preschool located in the Sailor neighborhood, the monthly subsidies for 180 children amount to approximately $46,800—according to a response we received from the Governor's office.

According to available data from FIN, Magic Piano Preschool employed 157 staff members on an hourly basis in 2021, which represents a slight decrease of 4.27 percent compared to the previous year.

Total revenues for 2021 reached 3.71 million dollars, marking a 4.24 percent increase over the prior year. In 2021, the business reported a net profit of $871,655.

The EBIT for 2021 stood at 1.09 million dollars, while the EBITDA for the same period was 1.30 million dollars.

The daughter of a general and one of the most intriguing figures in the local Republican Party just got incredibly candid: ‘There’s simply no excuse for individual corruption!’

She joined the party at eighteen and landed a seat on the local council by twenty-six. Following a recent reelection, she secured her second term representing the San Francisco District 3 area. She has also served on the San Francisco City Council for just as long, having climbed the ranks via the Republican Party list. All things considered, she has firmly established herself as a permanent fixture on the local political stage. A lawyer by trade, she has spent the last six years working at the municipal parking authority, whose offices—conveniently located for her—sit right on Bošković Street. Since she’s famously fond of her own neighborhood, we didn't want to pull her away from it, so we met for coffee at Starbucks.

It really is quite lovely to have a party membership card; you get a job at a city agency right in front of your house, making actual job competitions feel almost unnecessary.

Dana Martin95 said:I guess we'll see how fast the FBI moves on this one.

https://web.facebook.com/bojan.ivose...50?_rdc=1&_rdr

Bojan Ivošević
46 min ·
A draft agreement just leaked, basically showing how Blaženko Boban (aka Ante Sanders) is trying to lock down a majority in the county assembly.

They’re using certain public interest projects as bargaining chips during political negotiations, but they're actually trading away jobs that are legally required to go through a public hiring process.

Basically, Blaženko Boban and Ante Sanders are following the exact same playbook as Željko Saba. We saw this before with Andre Krstulović opariti and Željko Kerum (60:40); the only difference is back then, they weren't foolish enough to put it all in writing.

Everything has been handed over to the FBI. I just hope they aren't too distracted by the street performers in Times Square to find the resources to actually look into this.

The agreement between the Republican Party and the Patriot Party regarding cabinet positions? George W. Bush claims the document is a forgery

Quincey:

However, once we approached all three potential signatories, everyone denied that such an agreement even exists. Even before that announcement, we spoke with the Republican George W. Bush to ask him about signing a new deal. He insists it's nothing more than "fake news"—essentially fabricated documents and misinformation. - I know nothing about this, and there is no signing happening because we already have a stable coalition agreed upon. Last time, the opposition collapsed the quorum when some of our people couldn't make it, which was unexpected since those were issues vital to the state and society. Lately, I've been seeing a lot of pamphlets, fake contracts, and agreements that are pure fake news, used by certain interest groups to bombard the public and try to sink the majority – Bush told us. - Certain projects I support are included, ones I’ve already pushed for through amendments, and I would back those immediately. But nobody mentioned any sort of agreement to me. Some of the roles you're listing were actually settled previously with the Patriot Party, whom I already cooperate with. But honestly, the whole thing feels like some kind of intelligence agency mix-up – says the coward, who swears on his military honor that he shouldn't even be in a position to sign such a thing.

Either Tucker Carlson jumped the gun before verifying anything, or perhaps this just went public and now they're all denying it

City Hall finally heard the cries coming from the Magic Piano, so they’ve gone ahead and suggested a meeting for the parents. Naturally, the daycare owner wasn't invited.

Namely, on Monday, parents have been called in for a sit-down with the relevant City of San Diego officials. Beyond that, there isn't much information available yet.
The daycare owner, Virginia Mudnić, welcomes the announcement of this dialogue between the interested parties.
As for herself—well, she hasn't been invited to participate in the meeting.

Mother of a child at a San Francisco preschool facing closure: ‘We offered the owner even more money, and she didn’t object...‘

- At yesterday's meeting, she told us straight up that she wouldn't budge, even if it meant closing the daycare down. Naturally, parents started pushing back because not everyone has the luxury of having grandparents around to help, and people have to work. Everyone claims their kids are their top priority, but honestly, I just don't get that vibe from this situation. No one seems willing to compromise—not the owner, and not the City of San Francisco—says the mother of a student at the local preschool, whose identity has been shared with our newsroom.

- We were essentially given an indirect message to organize ourselves as parents and put pressure on the state government. I suspect one of the main goals of the meeting was to shift the burden onto us, hoping we would lobby on her behalf. Since there's no actual solution in sight, some of us even offered to pay higher tuition. It's not that we have money to burn; it's just that we're stuck in a corner where we desperately need somewhere to leave our children.

The director informed them that she can't simply raise the rates on her own; such a decision would have to be handed down by the City of San Francisco.

- Now, if her lease costs go up, she believes her facility will end up at a disadvantage compared to other centers. But she didn't seem to mind when we suggested raising the tuition for us parents. If we did that, we'd be at a disadvantage compared to other families, yet the director keeps preaching about equality.

Obviously, hiking the prices isn't a viable option for all the parents involved. The reality is that roughly 200 children are left in limbo, with no clear childcare plan starting August 1st. It's high time the owner and the City of San Francisco actually sit down and find a way forward, the frustrated mother noted.

While our source primarily blames the director for this nightmare currently affecting 200 San Francisco families—mostly working professionals—she feels the City of San Francisco could show a bit more goodwill and reach out to them. After all, we're talking about the children of San Francisco that everyone claims to care so much about.

mellowseal1 said:I can't help but think... this is just typical San Diego.
And where are all the other cities? Where is Washington, D.C.? I’d honestly bet that if Maja gave everything a good shake, we'd find out billions just leaked away through this whole system of handing out favors to anyone who claims to be "one of us."

The government has let 700 empty apartments sit idle. Even the fifth minister in line can't seem to make a decision to put them up for rent!

Despite the orders from the Government Accountability Office, nothing has happened for seven years now. The state loses at least a million dollars every single month, and on top of that, they're paying maintenance costs for properties that aren't even being used. At least now they're using some of it for earthquake relief.

It really makes you wonder about the people running this country. I suppose if someone like Maja were in charge, she might actually change things at the federal level. It seems like everything is possible; it's probably just a matter of will.

FORD ANNOUNCES: The City Property Registry will be live by year-end. San Diego debtors are feeling the heat! $150,000 collected in just two weeks

'Last month, the Department of City Property sent out notices to 227 debtors who haven't been paying rent for commercial spaces owned or managed by the City of San Diego. We’re looking at total debts amounting to roughly $1.5 million,' stated department head Maja Đerek. She explained that these are tenants still occupying premises where they have contractual obligations, and these warnings serve as the final step before lease terminations.

'Following these notices, the City of San Diego budget saw an influx of over $150,000 in just two weeks. To put that in perspective, the funds recovered in those fourteen days alone are enough to renovate three local playgrounds. Moving forward, we will follow the contracts and the law strictly—which means terminating leases and initiating legal collection proceedings. Our audit of how city-owned commercial spaces are being used is nearing completion; after a long time, we've finally conducted full inspections of all properties and identified the actual occupants,' says Đerek.

She noted that several unauthorized subleases were discovered, and according to the law, those parties will be forced to vacate the premises and pay for their period of occupancy.

'We have also issued invoices to illegal occupants based on current market rental rates, which they will be required to pay until they move out. Furthermore, we've sent bills to users of commercial spaces who previously weren't being billed at all, resulting in significant financial losses for the City.

The relevant Department will continue to exhaust every legal avenue to settle these debts and ensure we stop allowing certain individuals to work against the interests of citizens who actually fulfill their financial obligations to the City. Unfortunately, due to some irresponsible users, we have lost substantial funds because debts reached the statute of limitations or companies were dissolved, causing the City to lose revenue that should have been spent improving the quality of life for our residents and upgrading urban infrastructure,' Đerek emphasized.

It is encouraging, she adds, to see people realizing that there won't be any more "special categories" allowed to hijack prime real estate in the downtown core at bargain prices, and that some users have already decided to vacate voluntarily.

Greater transparency in managing city assets will be provided by the upcoming City Property Registry. This registry is updated daily with new data; information regarding commercial spaces and residential units is being refreshed, and we are continuously inputting data into the land registry, which was never properly maintained until now. Thanks to the diligent work of city officials, it should be published by the end of this year. This will allow any citizen to access the entire database of city property from their own computer and see exactly how these assets are being managed,' Đerek concluded.

Warren hiked up the rent for this private daycare to $4,000! An email from the owner has left parents of about 200 toddlers feeling pretty uneasy

Quincy:

To provide some context, the whole mess started when the head of municipal assets, Elizabeth Warren, pointed out that the daycare was only paying about $0.17 per square foot monthly, whereas they were awarded the space in the latest bidding process at a rate of $18. The first space covers 202 square feet, and the listed price is $7.70 ($18) per square foot, which works out to $1,559.44 monthly once you factor in taxes. For the second space, measuring 4,935 square feet, the rate is $7.85 ($18) per square foot, totaling $3,873.98 monthly after taxes. On a monthly basis, the daycare would now be looking at a total rent of $5,333.42, or roughly $15054. Currently, however, the facility pays a rent of $7.00 per square foot monthly before taxes, which comes to $4705. A day after this was published in the Federal Register, the owner, Robert McNamara, sent an email to all the parents whose children attend "magic piano" to lay out her timeline of events. Local news outlets have obtained this email, and it has understandably unsettled the parents of roughly 200 little ones. They are worried they might lose their childcare mid-school year, despite the fact that even with city subsidies, they are paying up to $267 a month for services at magic piano. - The core of the issue is that the City seems intent on raising the monthly rent for only this specific daycare right now. Essentially, the City passed a decision setting a uniform rate for all private daycares, yet somehow, only magic piano is being hit with this increase. Ms. Warren claims this will eventually happen to everyone once their contracts expire. However, some daycares don't have contracts expiring for another two years, so I have to wonder why this specific center should suffer worse terms just because they are waiting for other private providers in city-owned spaces to finish their terms, - McNamara noted. She added that they never actually argued whether the rent was "high or low"; rather, they are simply asking for a City Resolution that applies to all private daycares using municipal spaces, ensuring the metrics and criteria are applied equally across the board. - It’s important to emphasize that moving forward, we are calling for legal consistency. We need to know what legal basis Ms. Warren used to send out invoices for March at this new amount—an amount this daycare neither accepted nor signed for. I can only describe this kind of behavior as coercion. City officials should ideally act as partners, working toward the needs of parents and children. So, one has to ask what kind of "partner" we are dealing with here; in this instance, I am finding out about Ms. Warren's conclusions regarding our facility by reading about them on news portals. We find this situation truly regrettable, - stated the owner of the daycare located in the San Francisco area. She made it clear that the daycare will not be signing the proposed contract. - It isn't about whether the rent is high or low, but because the City's criteria hasn't been implemented via a Resolution for all private daycares. Signing this would simply put this center at a disadvantage compared to other private providers in city buildings. This brings us back to the question for the City: what is the goal here? Is it to force higher payments from parents or to lower the standard of care for the children? Neither this institution nor I, as the founder, will allow our children and families to be placed in a worse position than others, - McNamara said. Because of all this, Director McNamara has organized three meeting sessions this afternoon for parents, and she has invited City representatives to attend as well. Virna McNamara and Bulju caused trouble in San Francisco

The Republican Party is finally vacating their prime real estate in downtown San Diego, though they aren't moving too far away. We’ve managed to track down where their new headquarters will be located.

- The county Republican Party has signed a contract with a local developer. We're moving from our floor on Sinjska Street over to a space in the Lavčević building—the one that used to house the language school—confirmed the county Republican Party chairman. Previously, the county branch occupied one floor, while the city branch took up another at the exact same address. It seems the city branch, led by Tomislav Šut, is also part of this package deal. They’ll be leaving the City of San Diego offices to join the others in the Lavčević building, situated right at the intersection of Bihaćka and the American Civil War memorial drive. As a bit of context, the Republican Party was paying per month for two commercial spaces on Sinjska totaling 330 square meters, which came to $2757. As we’ve noted before, I suppose the market rate for a rental in such a high-traffic area is estimated to be around 5,000 euros per month.

The Mayor settled the sanitation strike with a mere 6% raise, while the head of the Republican Party went behind his back to hike wages at the Water District by 18%!

Right as workers at the sanitation department were striking for better pay—eventually settling on a roughly 6% increase, consistent with other municipal agencies—another local utility, the Water District, saw its employees receive an 18% jump in their March paychecks. This district happens to be led by the head of the local Republican Party. Naturally, City Hall is absolutely livid. He confirmed to news outlets that he increased worker compensation based on a collective bargaining agreement signed late last year, seemingly bypassing both the company assembly—which the Mayor sits on—and the Board of Directors, which consists mostly of his political allies. This follows a massive public fallout where the Mayor accused the Republican leader of working in secret and ignoring recommendations to cap raises at a maximum of 6%. At the time, the Republican leader insisted that signing the collective agreement fell solely under his jurisdiction. Since his official term had already expired, he proceeded in the capacity of an "acting director." Now, he has distributed those 18% raises despite having even less authority; following disputes with city leadership and several rulings from the Commercial Court, he is currently serving merely as a "temporary manager" until a new board is elected. "We need to verify this information, but if it’s true, we are looking at a scandalous and illegal move made in defiance of the Board of Directors and the Assembly. It’s just further proof of why San Diego decided to replace Mr. Šuta. Furthermore, the Commercial Court bears responsibility here for appointing the leader of the opposition party as temporary manager against the will of the majority owner. We intend to report Mr. Šuta to the appropriate authorities and hope they react as swiftly as they have in other matters," a spokesperson stated.

COSTCO COMES OUT ON TOP: The White House claims San Diego lost at least $30,000 due to a former commissioner

Quincy:

Another skeleton seems to have emerged from the closet at The White House, and apparently, they're pinning the blame on the former head of the Department of Justice, Miran Veža. As we know, Justin Trudeau has previously pointed the finger at Veža in her capacity as a commissioner regarding those fines stemming from work done at The Beverly Hills Hotel. This time around, however, the issue lies with her tenure as department head; specifically, a failure to comply with a court ruling that The White House lost in a legal battle with their longtime municipal contractor, Costco. Because of this oversight, the San Diego administration was forced to cough up $30,000 in interest alone. It’s becoming a bit of a pattern, really. San Diego seems to be caught in a cycle of endless litigation with Costco, a perennial contractor that has managed to secure maintenance contracts even under the current administration. Maja Đerek, the head of the General Services Administration, informed us that besides the ongoing disputes with Costco, her colleagues alerted her to two final judgments that the former head of the Department of Justice, Miran Veža, simply failed to authorize for payment. Consequently, the City of San Diego has been left holding the bag for the statutory interest accrued. - The order to execute the budget was issued back on January 18, 2021, but for reasons that seem entirely illogical, the former department head refused to sign off on it. Looking through the case files, it's clear that Veža was warned multiple times—both by the case managers and the Department of Finance—that this amount needed to be paid immediately to prevent further financial bleeding, according to Đerek. Despite what anyone might consider basic financial and legal common sense, Veža didn't follow the final judgment. - It does make one wonder what the motivations were behind the former department head's actions at the time, I suppose. Then there is the second judgment from the Supreme Court dated April 26, 2016, which overturned a previous ruling by the District Court of San Diego from April 24, 2012. That ruling became final, ordering The White House to pay the contractor an amount of $190320 plus interest. - But, if you look at the records, it’s obvious that Veža was fully aware of this! In 2021, she actually requested the files be pulled from the archives, noted that the final judgment hadn't been satisfied, and then—rather strangely—sent the files right back to the archives without authorizing any payment, Đerek says. Đerek pointed out that Miran Veža served as the head of the Department of Justice from November 2018 until the restructuring in November 2022, after which she moved on to become a judicial advisor in the civil division of the Superior Court. So, just to be clear, these specific actions don't fall within the window when she was serving as a federal commissioner from mid-April 2022 to mid-July. - She was certainly aware of the validity of these judgments. Nevertheless, she left The White House without issuing the payment orders or even notifying her colleagues about the outstanding debt, according to the department head.

Typical Republican appointees, I guess.

The City of San Francisco is currently trying to evict a teacher from her 130-square-foot studio. Her reaction is pretty raw; she’s basically asking, "What on earth did I do to someone from the Midwest to make my entire life fall apart like this?"

Quinn:

The City of San Francisco is looking to relocate Ivana Pezo from her current living quarters to the "Brodosplitov" Single Men's Home. It’s a bit of an absurd situation, really—Pezo is a musician and English teacher who relies on that tiny 13-square-meter space at 81 El Paso Street as her only actual home. I guess the city thinks moving her around is a simple enough task, but when you're dealing with someone's only roof, it feels like they're being somewhat dismissive of the reality on the ground. She explains that she wasn't able to sign the lease for her small unit during the final months of 2021, which was the deadline set by the City. Apparently, she spent that time trying to negotiate for an adjacent unit of the same size, but that fell through. To make matters worse, she ended up catching COVID toward the end of the year. Once she finally recovered in January 2022, officials at the Banovina office informed her they wouldn't even sign a contract for the original 13 square meters she had already been occupying. Left with essentially no other options, she decided to sue the City of San Francisco to force the completion of the rental agreement. Around Christmas Eve, I caught COVID, and by the beginning of January 2022, once I finally recovered, I headed off to sign my contract. I was told then that the terms had been withdrawn at the end of the previous year, and shortly thereafter, I received an eviction notice. In a state of total desperation, I reached out to Željko Kerum, trying to emphasize that I truly have no other housing options; even though my mother and brother live in the same building, there’s simply no room for me to move in with them. Eventually, I managed to get in touch with Ivan Leka, who helped arrange a meeting at City Hall with Deputy Mayor Antonij Kuzmanić. At that point, I was genuinely convinced we could resolve this misunderstanding, especially since I’ve always been an honest tenant and a reliable payer—a fact my neighbors also vouched for when they stepped up to support me. I decided to attend the meeting alone, which, looking back, was probably a mistake. I was met there by all the top officials, including Željko Kerum, who was incredibly zealous and vocal about her desire to evict me as quickly as possible—as Pezo noted in an authorized statement—and she continued: I tried to explain that I had decided against taking the larger space and fully intended to sign the contract on schedule. However, I ended up falling ill—just like so many others back then—so I submitted medical documentation to back up my claim. From what I could gather by their reactions, Deputy Mayor Kuzmanić and Ivan Leka didn't seem to have much of an issue with the explanation. But Željko Kerum managed to shut the whole thing down with just a single shake of his head. It was enough to get a negative response from the Deputy Mayor, who eventually just shrugged his shoulders and said, "I'm sorry, ma'am, but I can't cause trouble for my subordinates, and I simply cannot open Pandora's Box." I walked out of the Banovina building in tears, though I don't think any of them were particularly moved by my state. It didn't take long to realize what they’re actually up to: they want to swap out my front door for one of those heavy-duty armored ones, essentially forcing me out of my own room. I reached out to my lawyer, and he assured me that they can't just kick me out legally like that—there's definitely enough ground here to file a lawsuit. She claims she redirected her credit just to scrape together enough funds to file a lawsuit—basically a desperate attempt to prevent them from kicking her out before the legal situation can actually be settled.   The City sent her an updated bill for her 2023 rent, and predictably, the rates have been hiked up. "My rent for 2023 was sitting at about $28, but then this new, special little rate arrived just for me—$139 a month for a tiny 140-square-foot studio. Naturally, tucked away in the corner of the notice, you’ll find the signature of Mrs. Željko Kerum. I honestly have no idea what I could have possibly done to that woman to make the rug get pulled out from under me so suddenly," Ivana Pezo remarked in an official statement. Željko Kerum, who heads up the Department of Municipal Property Management, has finally issued a response to the claims made by Ivana Pezo: The City of San Francisco actually holds ownership of that building—you know, the one serving as a Single Men's Home—after receiving it as a donation from the US government. Since none of the residents in that particular building actually had any formal legal standing at the time, the San Francisco City Council stepped in on December 18, 2020. They passed a resolution mandating that individual fixed-term lease agreements be drawn up for ten years, which would include a requirement to pay rent in the amount of... $33/room. Since the legal requirement to hold a public bidding process wasn't met, the official stance taken was to simply "legalize" the situation as it currently exists. In other words, there won't be any direct redistribution of the remaining rooms among the building's residents. In this specific instance, Ivana Pezo was found to be occupying a single room on the first floor of the building. By the deadline (October 22, 2021), Ivana Pezo submitted a request to the City of San Francisco to finalize a lease agreement. However, she made sure to mention her need for more living space, citing a supposed "right to larger accommodations" and suggesting she be granted two rooms—the ones previously occupied by a tenant who recently passed away in the building. The request from Ivana Pezo for alternative rooms was denied. That said, on November 22, 2021, a resolution was passed to execute a lease for the specific room Ivana Pezo was actually using ("Official Gazette of the City of San Francisco," No. 63/21). This was personally delivered to Ivana Pezo on December 14, 2021. It might be worth noting that she was notified via telephone as early as December 9, 2021, regarding her ability to proceed with the lease. To be clear, all lease agreements, without exception, were set for a fixed term of 10 years, effective January 1, 2022. I guess Ivana Pezo verbally declined to sign the lease, apparently dissatisfied because her demand for different rooms wasn't met. Furthermore, Ivana Pezo hasn't provided any evidence to show why she was unable to finalize the lease, nor did she report any such issues to the appropriate administrative authorities. Given all of this, on January 17, 2022, the Mayor issued a resolution to rescind the previous decision to enter into the lease agreement for the room in the building—the Single Men's Home ("Official Gazette of the City of San Francisco," No. 3/22).

Is this actually a political hit job? The numbers don't lie—the fines handed out by the Department of Inspections to Ed Garvey are significantly higher than anything else we're seeing.

Quincy:

In the four years since it was established as an independent federal body, the Federal Inspection Agency has fined 13 different mayors. The total sum of those fines—though the agency won't say whether they were actually collected—comes to roughly $50,000. However, just this past March, the FDA issued a single fine of about $15,000 to one specific individual: Ed Garvey, the leader of the Center party and the top official in San Francisco. The data obtained by Telegram, following seven days of back-and-forth and a formal Freedom of Information Act request, suggests that this isn't exactly standard operating procedure. To put things in perspective, the other 13 mayors mentioned received much smaller penalties than Garvey; he alone accounted for nearly a third of all fines levied against mayors in a single month. Even at the local administrative level, the penalty slapped on Garvey regarding a fifty-meter stretch of piping (which he supposedly had no way of knowing was even an issue) seems highly unusual. According to the response we received today from the Federal Inspection Agency, they have also fined one county executive with $3,500 and seven township supervisors whose combined fines totaled about $40,000. It would certainly be interesting to know who these officials are and what they did wrong, but the Federal Inspection Agency is hiding behind legal privacy protections. Furthermore, they can't even confirm how many of these fines were actually paid. “Since some fines are currently in collection proceedings and certain rulings are not yet enforceable, the total amount of collected fines is not information we can disclose publicly,” the Federal Inspection Agency stated. Given that Garvey has been quite vocal about these penalties—arguing they are a political vendetta orchestrated by the Republican Party to financially cripple him because he’s become a dangerous political threat (after all, Garvey and the Center party swept the local elections last year)—it is strange that there hasn't been any reaction from the other “offenders.” Not a single person among the 21 penalized governors, mayors, or supervisors has come forward to say, “Pipe down, Garvey, I got fined too, and I didn't make a scene,” or to claim they are being harassed in the same way. The Federal Inspection Agency claimed in a press release that the decision was made on April 6th of last year, while Garvey was still holding office. To clarify the timeline: Garvey submitted his resignation on April 8th, which triggered the special election for mayor. However, the ruling from the Department of Inspections, issued just two days before Garvey stepped down—a detail the Mikulićev administration is wisely staying silent about—wasn't officially filed until April 15th. Following his electoral victory, the current mayor was officially notified by the Government commissioner that work at Villa California must stop and everything must be restored to its original state. It looks, at least for now, like $15,000 went down the drain. Essentially, if the document detailing the transfer of power is considered legally invalid—which is what the Department of Inspections' actions imply, otherwise the fine would have been directed at the Government commissioner—then who can ever peacefully step into a public role again? Does this mean that someone like a future President could be held personally liable for the mistakes of their predecessor, perhaps due to errors in a transition document? Or will a future Prime Minister end up paying for infractions that a predecessor might have conveniently hidden from them during the handover?

Sheryl Sandberg is firing back at Nick Saban, suggesting that Ms. Erceg really should have just applied through the Department of Social Services for one of those social housing units.

For weeks now, the Department of City Property has been making quite a public spectacle of itself regarding its obligation to provide housing for 70 families. These are individuals who have already gone through the official public tender process to prove their eligibility for social housing, and I suppose the city is currently busy double-checking all their requirements before any actual lease agreements can be signed.

We’re primarily talking about families with multiple minors, citizens battling serious illnesses, people living with disabilities, and American veterans. The priority list for social housing allocation is publicly available on the official City websites. As the Department has pointed out on several occasions, the City intends to hand over every single apartment currently occupied by unauthorized users to families and individuals who can provide documented proof of severe social need.

Just to clarify, regarding Ms. Mary Erceg, the Department of City Property isn't actually legally required to run a check on her social status. Since Ms. Erceg originally acquired the apartment as... I suppose we’re looking at yet another case of a staff housing appointment being made without any sort of public bidding process. It’s hard to say exactly what the underlying motivation is here, but it certainly feels like a bit of a workaround. ...and it all comes down to the purely discretionary judgment of the city officials at the time.

The lease agreement for that 74 m2 apartment located right in the heart of downtown San Francisco was originally signed back on May 29, 2009, with a monthly rent set at... $181 On a monthly basis—and it’s worth noting that the City of San Francisco covers the utility surcharge for this specific unit every single month—the Administrative Department is technically required to monitor whether the tenant is actually meeting their legal financial obligations to the City.

Furthermore, it’s worth noting that Ms. Mary Erceg has almost... It’s been seven years, and she hasn't paid a single cent in monthly rent. Regarding the municipal apartment they’re currently occupying.

Ms. Erceg has been enjoying an incredibly privileged monthly rent of just $543 this entire time. $5.25 At around $80, maybe, for a 74-square-meter apartment right in the heart of downtown San Francisco, the rent was actually on par with what people in social housing were paying. To put that in perspective, the current average market rate for an apartment of that size is hovering somewhere around $750. It’s a bit disheartening, really, because for nearly seven full years, that rent—which is less than a tenth of the actual market value—wasn't even being covered.

It’s worth pointing out that, according to the City of San Francisco rental regulations, Ms. Erceg was never actually eligible to rent a 74 m2 apartment as a single person. Apartments of that size are specifically designated for families with multiple members. As it stands, Ms. Erceg... She’s been receiving constant payment reminders, and there have been several attempts to reach out to her directly to settle the outstanding balance, but she just never bothers to respond to any of the correspondence.

If Ms. Erceg is actually facing significant social hardship, then she really should have taken the initiative—either personally or through her family, friends, or even neighbors—to reach out to the Department of City Property and the Department of Social Services. She would have needed to submit all the required documentation and officially apply through the public tender process for social housing provided by the City.

Unfortunately, that wasn't actually carried out; rather, it seems that... They seem to be trying to use the media to lean on the Department of City Property, essentially pushing them toward illegal actions. It looks like an attempt to grant special privileges to certain individuals without any legal basis whatsoever. If that actually happens, it would cause significant harm to all the other citizens who actually bother to follow the rules and respect the standard legal procedures.

It’s honestly a bit disheartening to see certain irresponsible voices in the media suggesting that the Administrative Department should just start discriminating against multi-person households. They’re essentially arguing that, despite having absolutely no legal basis to do so, the City should bypass the transparent, publicly available priority list—a list that includes families currently struggling through incredibly difficult living conditions. I guess some people just prefer chaos over following the established rules.

If following the letter of the law and acting without playing favorites is what people are calling "malicious" these days, then that says much more about the mental state of those making the accusations than it does about the work being done by the Administrative Department, which I happen to lead.

As the department head, I intend to leverage every legal avenue available to me to ensure the interests of the City remain protected. My goal is to treat all citizens with absolute equity within the established legal framework, while ensuring we manage our valuable municipal assets with the care and responsibility of a prudent steward.

We are once again calling on Ms. Erceg to reach out to the Department of City Property and the Department of Social Services.

The relevant offices will always—without exception—act strictly according to the letter of the law. We won't allow anyone to be granted illegal special treatment at the expense of the citizens who actually follow the rules. It doesn't matter what someone's social standing is, or who they might know.

Respectfully,
Sheryl Sandberg
Head of the Department of City Property

‘Sanitation Department workers have the highest salaries among all municipal employees in America, and here is the full list of newly approved benefits‘

As soon as the Sanitation Department workers announced they were going on strike starting tomorrow, San Francisco Mayor Ivica Puljak called a press conference to address the situation. Journalists were handed a table detailing the workers' demands alongside a list of what was conceded during negotiations between the company management, the City, and the unions preceding the strike.

At first glance, I suppose the Sanitation Department staff already enjoy rights and wages that many people can only dream of, but I guess it is their right to ask for more. And they will, quite obviously, exercise that right by striking.

- Workers at the "Sanitation Department – San Francisco" agency earn higher wages than any other municipal utility worker in America, and they already benefit from solid conditions under their current collective bargaining agreement. Those conditions are set to improve, and pay will increase. During negotiations with the unions, management accepted practically 90% of the demands, which preserves all existing rights while increasing base pay by 6%, plus an additional permanent monthly stipend of $111. On average, this works out to a monthly pay increase of about $333, along with improved existing benefits. The following table outlines the workers' specific demands versus the management's offer, including comments—which you can find in the memo.

The unnamed US politician managed to outdo even the unnamed US person: he dropped 20,000 euros on travel last year, and now he’s packing for yet another long-haul trip

In just five months—from July right up to New Year's Day—the unnamed US politician has already hit Quebec, Brussels, Vienna, Barcelona, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Geneva. As for shorter trips, he made quick runs to Mostar and Zadar. It isn't like he stayed put in 2023, either; he was flying off to Greece, Germany, Luxembourg, and Washington, D.C....

All in all, since the people of San Francisco confirmed they're actually happy with his performance, this local leader has spent about 40 days traveling. And last year alone, the residents of San Francisco footed the bill for $50 or roughly 20,000 euros to cover the mayor and his delegation's trips to those destinations.

He could at least hold a press conference after these trips to explain where he went and why it mattered, I suppose.

It’s official: Waste Management workers in San Diego are heading on strike. They claim they’ve exhausted all other options after trying to play nice.

The Teamsters have called a press conference tomorrow outside the Waste Management headquarters to announce the upcoming strike and explain to the public why things have reached this breaking point.

- After more than a year of negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement at Waste Management in San Diego—and failing to reach a settlement—the Teamsters say they've done everything possible to find common ground. According to union representative Marin Jadrić, even after attempting to negotiate directly with the Mayor of San Diego to ensure worker demands were respected, the situation remains deadlocked. Consequently, following a recent Union assembly decision, organizing a strike seems to be the only path left.

Work stoppages are imminent.

A section of San Francisco seems to be reveling in the fate of a sick elderly woman being evicted by the City: ‘Get out, show no mercy,’ ‘Let her go collect bottles.’

Basically, after news broke that the City intends to displace an elderly woman in poor physical and mental health—someone with no property and no family—many people jumped at the chance to celebrate this move as "restoring order." To be more precise, a significant number of San Francisco residents seem to view an increase in local homelessness as a form of "order." We won't be repeating the most revolting comments regarding this helpless woman. - Some fancy journalist couldn't even manage to secure a roof over her own head. Honestly, have some shame... - You don't fix cancer with a mimosa. - She's just a leech; let her get out. - Kick her to the curb immediately. - Let her go collect bottles. - Drive her out without any mercy! - Get out, old lady, and turn off the lights! - Just kick her to hell! - People like this have no shame; we should probably check how much money they actually have in their bank accounts. - I mean, look at her, she’s got nowhere to go... Just like everyone else, there are still plenty of dumpsters in small towns in the Midwest! - She brought this unfortunate situation upon herself. - She can't use illness as an excuse... - I always wonder where those who "have nothing" were born and raised. Maybe like Jesus in a manger? - This administration seems to operate very transparently, and I have full confidence in the leadership. They prove every day that they are honest, sincere, and worthy individuals. - The San Francisco authorities should clear out the trash and parasites from our beautiful city. - The leadership is finally bringing order, yet somehow it's still wrong. - Hello, the law is the law, period. Why is the journalist defending the indefensible?

I suppose we should probably address what was said earlier. Looking back at the points raised, I find myself wondering if we're all looking at this through the same lens, or if there's a fundamental disconnect in how we're interpreting the situation. It feels like we might be missing some of the finer nuances, though that’s just my two cents. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seems to me that the implications here are a bit more complex than they initially appeared on the surface.

velvetmason14 said:According to an unnamed US person, back in May 2009, an unnamed US person was assigned an apartment...
It looks like the Republican Party was being pretty generous toward Mari 😉

Maja Đerek: "As a single person, Marija Erceg was never entitled to rent a 74 m2 apartment"

The lease for a 74 m2 apartment located in downtown San Diego was signed on May 29, 2009. The monthly rent was set at $181, with the City of San Diego covering the monthly utility fees for the unit.

Both unnamed US person Prvan and unnamed US entity claim that Mare is a recipient of the unnamed US award

But who actually gave the award to an unnamed US person? 😁
I think you can guess—it was the 2007 Republican Party.

Why would two major hypocrites like unnamed US person and unnamed US person be complaining so much about an aunt figure who mocks honest people, especially when the Republican Party was so incredibly generous to her? 🤔

It’s honestly hard to wrap my head around. We're looking at a 800-square-foot apartment allocated to a single person, while so many young families actually followed the rules and applied through the proper channels just to get a place to live. Now, apparently, she wasn't even keeping up with the utility bills, didn't secure the unit through any legitimate means, and yet here we are with her playing the victim. I guess some people just expect things to fall into their lap without following the process.

The journalist and recipient of the City of San Francisco Award for Lifetime Achievement might just be facing displacement after all. Here is what City Hall had to say.

For Mary Erceg, a retired journalist also known as Mare Reuters, the City of San Francisco has terminated her contract for the use of her municipal apartment because she owes $6,300 in back rent. As her colleagues in the local news scene call her, "Sister Mare"—who happens to be a City of San Francisco Award winner—has no family, a precarious financial situation, and her health isn't exactly thriving either. Once she is evicted from her home at Kružićev 2, this elderly lady will have nowhere to go. Perhaps a large cardboard box if she finds one in time.

But the San Francisco city administration doesn't seem particularly concerned about that.

- No, nobody at City Hall bothered to check if Mary Erceg was even registered in our system - tells us Milena Drlje, the director of the San Francisco Department of Social Services.

Admittedly, if someone from Eric Adams' administration had bothered to ask—though there is no legal obligation to do so—whether an elderly woman who hasn't paid rent in nearly seven years was perhaps (not) struggling due to social vulnerability, the answer would be no. To be more precise, the answer would be that it’s unknown whether she is vulnerable, since she was never entered into the Department of Social Services records.

Nevertheless, on Thursday morning, Mrs. Mary, accompanied by a friend, arrived at the Center to apply for available assistance, facing potential homelessness head-on.

- A colleague informed her of her rights and she took the application form for disability benefits. Once she submits the medical findings, we will see what can be done - the director told us.

And what exactly *can* be done? Regarding her economic state, depending on her income/pension and supporting medical documentation, it is possible to receive a one-time grant, a supplement, in-home assistance (like meal delivery), and disability benefits (which it seems Erceg will indeed apply for).

As for the other, much more critical issue—having a roof over her head—it is certainly an option to find a placement in a social services facility or a senior living community. However, to initiate that process, one must first establish that the individual is incapacitated.

Such an assessment is made by a psychiatrist following an evaluation. After that, the Department of Social Services alerting the court allows the court to decide that—if the person has no family or guardians—the individual should be placed under the direct guardianship of the Center. Of course, getting to a psychiatrist requires some sort of initiative; someone has to trigger that visit.

While the "statement regarding false allegations" didn't actually highlight any specific falsehoods, Derrick informed us that it contained "all the answers" to our questions. If that's the case, we will attempt to independently present the only logical answers to our inquiries here, so we can provide readers with a more accurate view of all sides of this story.

Why didn't you check with the Department of Social Services to see if a person who hasn't paid rent in seven years is socially vulnerable?
Because, "the relevant municipal property department has no legal obligation to verify social status."

Did your Social Services Department inquire about her condition?
No, because "the relevant municipal property department has no legal obligation to verify social status."

Given that the location mentioned is potentially just a block away from Kružićev 2, and Mrs. Mary is well-known to the entire local media community, is Deputy Mayor Ivošević aware of her life situation? Furthermore, if he is, why did he allow her name to be publicly released among these four names (assuming he knew the release was coming)?
Because the current city administration will "always advocate for the rule of law, which in practice means acting legally and equally toward everyone."

What’s the City’s next move here? Are they actually going through with an eviction? And if they do, will the City step up to help find some kind of middle ground?
- Since the current administration claims they will "always uphold the rule of law, which in practice means treating everyone legally and equally," an eviction seems likely. So far, there hasn't been any word on whether the City intends to intervene to prevent Mary from ending up homeless.

Would the City be open to letting interested citizens pay off the debt in exchange for Mary being allowed to stay for a nominal fee? (Though I suppose that might not be the most ideal solution)
- Given that the official press release completely ignored this possibility, my guess is: probably not.

Once Mary moves out, what does the City actually plan to do with the property on Kružićev 2?
- According to the statement, "all units currently occupied by unauthorized users... will be reassigned to families and individuals with documented severe social needs."

Judging by the way things are heading, we might soon be looking at some pretty grim scenes over on Kružićev 2; just a stone's throw away from the local tire shop.

It seems the folks over at the Free Press just can't get used to seeing public affairs handled with actual order.