Posts by Emily Smith6

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...00079264579645

Since a certain well-known local author decided to call me out personally again based on nothing but falsehoods, I felt compelled to set the record straight. I should mention that I actually offered Mr. Tomic a meeting so we could clear up any confusion by reviewing the actual evidence and documentation together. As of today, our famous writer hasn't made any attempt to contact me.
I can't quite wrap my head around why Mr. Tomic is so intensely committed to highlighting these two blatant examples of preferential treatment and broken contractual obligations—especially when it comes at the expense of our most vulnerable citizens who are just patiently waiting their turn for public housing.
The days of cutting deals through connections and old buddies are coming to an end; everyone is required to fulfill their obligations to the City, and frankly, a little media scrutiny serves as a decent motivator.

It’s funny how once you challenge him to actually face the facts, he suddenly goes silent.

I suppose we should probably point out that since retired journalist Ms. Erceg is single, she wasn't actually entitled to a 74-square-meter rental unit. She might want to get in touch with the Department of Social Services regarding that matter.

Just to clarify the situation regarding Ms. Erceg: the Department of City Property isn't actually legally required to perform any kind of social status check in her case. As I understand it, she was assigned this apartment as a staff residence—essentially bypassing the standard public bidding process entirely based solely on the discretionary judgment of the city officials in power at the time. This particular lease covers a 74-square-meter unit located right in the heart of downtown San Diego. The agreement was finalized back on May 29, 2009, and includes a monthly rent of... $181 On a monthly basis, it’s worth noting that the City of San Diego pays out a housing stipend for this specific apartment every single month.The relevant administrative department is actually obligated to monitor whether a user is meeting their legal financial obligations to the City. Furthermore, I should point out that Ms. Erceg... It’s been nearly seven years without a single monthly rent payment. Regarding the city-owned apartment she’s currently occupying: I should probably mention that Ms. Erceg has been benefiting from an incredibly subsidized monthly rent of just $543. $5.25 It’s roughly $80 for a 74-square-meter apartment right in the heart of downtown San Diego. This essentially meant the rent was pegged to the exact same rate as those receiving social housing assistance. The current market rate for an apartment of this size is hovering around $750 a month. Unfortunately, it’s been nearly seven full years since anyone has even attempted to address the fact that our current rental rates are sitting at less than a tenth of what they should be according to the actual market."...," says Maja Đerek.

Furthermore, I should point out that, in accordance with the City of San Diego housing rental regulations, I suppose it’s worth noting that Ms. Erceg, being single, was never actually eligible to rent a 74-square-meter apartment. Based on the City of San Diego housing rental regulations, units of that size are specifically designated for families with multiple members.

Ms. Erceg has been receiving constant reminders regarding her outstanding balance, and there have been several attempts to reach out to her to settle the debt, but... She never actually bothered to respond to any of the correspondence.

If Ms. Erceg is actually facing severe social hardship, the proper way to handle that would be to reach out directly—either personally or through family, friends, or neighbors—to the relevant administrative offices and the Department of Social Services. She should have submitted all the necessary paperwork and applied through the official public application process for social housing. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. Instead, there seems to be an attempt to use the media to pressure the Administrative Department into acting illegally. Trying to grant privileges to individuals without any legal basis only serves to unfairly disadvantage other citizens who actually follow the established rules and procedures, according to Đerek.

As a department head, my position remains unchanged: I will always advocate for the rule of law. In practical terms, that means ensuring everyone is treated legally and equally, regardless of their social standing, who they know, or what connections they might have. It is unfortunate that certain irresponsible individuals are using the media to suggest that the Administrative Department should ignore legal standards and instead discriminate against multi-member families—families who are currently living in difficult conditions—based on some transparent, publicly available priority list. If adhering to established laws and refusing to grant special privileges is being labeled as "malicious," then I suppose that says more about the mindset of those making the accusations than it does about the integrity of the department I lead. Moving forward, I intend to utilize every legal avenue available to me to protect the interests of the City of San Diego. My goal is to ensure all citizens are treated with the same level of fairness within our legal framework, and to manage our valuable city property with the care and responsibility of a good steward.

The official statement basically says that Ms. Erceg is being called upon once again to get in touch with both the Department of City Property and the Department of Social Services.

The relevant authorities will always, without exception, act strictly according to the letter of the law. There simply won't be any leeway to grant anyone illegal special treatment at the expense of citizens who actually follow the rules. Regardless of an individual's social standing or whatever connections they might claim to have, the process remains the same.

The Department of City Property has been stating publicly for weeks now that they are obligated to provide housing for 70 families and individuals. These people have already proven their eligibility through a public bidding process, and their qualifications are being double-checked before any lease agreements are actually signed. We are mostly talking about large families with young children, citizens dealing with serious illnesses, people with disabilities, and American veterans. The priority list for social housing allocation is available for anyone to see on the official City websites. As the Administrative Department has emphasized multiple times, the City intends to hand over all (!) apartments currently occupied by unauthorized users to the families and individuals on that transparent priority list, provided they meet all the verified social service requirements. I should probably point out that the City of San Diego simply doesn't have enough units to house everyone on that list, largely because more and more properties are being transferred to federal ownership due to legal mandates. Additionally, Ms. Erceg noted that leading up to Christmas 2022, for the first time in thirteen years, the first set of apartments were finally assigned to socially vulnerable residents following the public tender. Currently, five city-owned apartments are being renovated specifically for this purpose.

Haha, I love how Ms. Erceg always manages to bring them back down to earth and put them right where they belong. They can't even afford a cheap apartment; they only got their places through connections.

Rob Ford: The Republican Party has stripped our people of their freedom

If we can just strip the Republican Party of all public funding over the next two election cycles, we’ll finally neutralize the biggest engine of corruption and crime in the country. Once that happens, the Republican Party will essentially vanish. That’s an idea worth fighting for. Now that we are fully integrated into the global community, we have this incredible opportunity to start from scratch and rebuild America—but this time, without the Republican Party, said the Mayor of San Francisco

It’s either the Republican Party or America; I suppose you could call that a love letter to the country.

I think we really ought to consider forming more natural electoral districts. We could probably divide America into five or six distinct regions. The whole of Florida should be one district, the Midwest another, and Washington, D.C. would obviously be its own thing... Once we actually take power, we won't just be looking at changing electoral boundaries; we intend to finally push through a full reform of regional and local self-governance. We need to decentralize the nation, move away from the county system, and implement a regional model where 556 municipalities and cities are grouped into about 120 urban hubs, which would then oversee the smaller towns they naturally gravitate toward. The current setup just isn't functional or sustainable.

Progress and major projects move far too slowly because of endless administrative red tape. Personally, my biggest frustration is having to ask the federal government for permission regarding every tiny detail. We are easily one of the most centralized nations in the Western world. For instance, the City of San Francisco doesn't even control a third of its own territory because it’s tied up in county or state ownership. It’s frankly unacceptable. The government owns various properties within San Francisco, yet the laws are structured such that it takes an eternity to get anything done. Then there are the unresolved property rights, the incredibly sluggish courts, and the sheer number of bottlenecks stifling the city's growth. We need to overhaul both the federal bureaucracy and the legal framework to simplify procedures and formalities. It is absolutely vital that all federally owned real estate be transferred back to the municipalities and cities where it's located, so we don't have to go begging the administration for every little local project.

The Department of Labor isn't even trying to look independent when it comes to Justin Trudeau

Quincy:

Since we were left wondering how they could issue two completely contradictory rulings, we reached out to the Department of Labor for an explanation. Rather than actually addressing our questions, they just sent back a note stating that the party involved had already received the reasoned decision. Last week, we asked them straight up if they had penalized any other department heads or mayors for personal enrichment, aside from Justin Trudeau. They thanked us for the question, but—unsurprisingly—didn't bother answering it. Either the San Francisco mayor is being singled out, or they simply don't care about public perception. Justin Trudeau maintains that nothing like this has ever happened in American history and claims this is all just political pressure designed to wipe him off the political map. Given the rather arrogant tone coming from the Department of Labor, I guess there isn't much else to think. If everything the San Francisco mayor has shared with the public is true, then state institutions are treating him like he’s running a little corner shop in Charlie Brown instead of managing the second-largest city in a major European Union member state. Justin Trudeau beat the Republican Party twice in San Francisco, which, it seems, they haven't quite forgiven him for. That might be their prerogative, but it becomes a real problem when state institutions—which should remain impartial despite being led by partisan officials—get dragged into it. The Department of Labor isn't even attempting to maintain a facade of neutrality.

Jerry Sanders claims he's being politically blackmailed by global interests, and even Veže chimed in: "We've never seen anything like this before; I'm reporting everyone!"

The bottom line: America's tallest skyscraper just got its permit!

Puljak is losing ground everywhere; things just aren't going his way lately.

Puljak is looking at even more fines $33. The Department of Labor just slapped him with another penalty, while simultaneously sending a little ‘congratulations’ note to the City of San Diego

The Mayor of San Diego, Ivica Puljak, has received a new ruling from the Department of Labor along with an additional $13,000 fine. This stems from the exact same issue regarding the allegedly unauthorized installation of water and sewage lines at the Villa California residential complex, according to reports from local news outlets.
In what can only be described as a rather absurd turn of events, the Department of Labor also issued a violation notice fining the City of San Diego $4,000 and Ivica Puljak $400 for the same infraction. Since the previous ruling and the initial $13,000 fine haven't been overturned, we now have three separate legal proceedings all colliding over a single incident.

To put it simply, under one proceeding, Puljak is forbidden from continuing any work at Villa California, otherwise he faces a fine even larger than the original $13,000—and that ruling remains in full effect. Under the second, more recent proceeding, however, he is being ordered to immediately resume work and start ripping out the pipes that have already been laid, or else he'll face yet another penalty.

So, if he starts working and fails to follow the rules, the San Diego mayor will end up paying an even higher amount.

The latest Department of Labor decision regarding this 'second' $13,000 fine for Puljak feels particularly nonsensical when you consider that it essentially mandates the removal of the core utility infrastructure at Villa California, which would leave the property without sanitation and effectively make it unusable.

As if the absurdity weren't complete enough, there is one more factor: the process for issuing the construction permits for the water and sewage systems around Villa California is actually nearing completion. Once that happens, the property will receive exactly the kind of infrastructure that was originally intended. With the new pipes.

It seems they really want him out of politics; they're going all in to trip him up. He's facing his third fine, yet Boban hasn't seen a single one for Ben.

A representative from the Service Employees International Union has weighed in, suggesting that the only real uncertainty left is exactly when the strike will kick off.

Zoran Bakula, an employee at Waste Management and a representative for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), reached out to us via a formal letter. He’s looking to provide some clarity regarding the current situation unfolding within that municipal agency.

It seems inevitable that the San Francisco Department of Public Works is heading toward a strike. I suppose the question remains: why does the Mayor insist there isn't one? I can't say for certain. It appears the only point of contention left is the specific date, though most of us workers are hoping it happens as soon as possible, as this feels like the only way to actually resolve anything. At the workers' assembly, nearly all the field staff were present, along with several office employees—over 150 colleagues in total. Every single hand was raised in favor of the strike; there wasn't a single hand against it. Justin Trudeau mentioned in a press statement that we had agreed to scale back our demands. We did not. Furthermore, in one of those public addresses, he provided inaccurate data regarding our wages. He used incorrect figures that would likely convince the public to just shake his hand and move on, which would have prevented this entire situation from escalating. Of course, it is quite easy to see that these are false claims, intended to turn the public against the sanitation workers—exactly what the Mayor guaranteed would happen during the official meeting in the Midwest. One might conclude that Mr. Trudeau doesn't take the San Francisco Department of Public Works employees seriously, and neither does our director, Ivica Karoglan. The fact that this has been dragged out for a year and a half is telling. All Marin Jadrić wants is to secure a realistic collective bargaining agreement that provides workers with a modest, guaranteed pay increase to account for the extreme rise in the cost of living, alongside slightly better working conditions. To be blunt, the field workers at the Department of Public Works have incredibly poor working conditions. The organization is poorly managed, and both the trucks and the bins are dilapidated and potentially dangerous. As for protective gear, it’s practically non-existent; the raincoats and boots aren't even waterproof, and the footwear is uncomfortable and heavy. The director's only response to this is to claim that the "equipment is certified." We receive three pairs of gloves a month when we realistically need at least five. The workload is such that if you want to finish the job and clear all the streets, you end up having to lift the bins by hand—even though you aren't technically supposed to do that. People who try to get everything done by manually shaking the bins end up suffering from constant physical strain and frequent sick leave. Meanwhile, if someone follows protocol, uses the hydraulic lifts, and takes their legally mandated breaks, many streets simply remain unfinished. In practice, the workload then gets shifted onto the person who was lifting them by hand, because they can do twice as much work. Some supervisors push workers right to the edge of their endurance, and frankly, those limits are starting to break. There are no rewards for that effort—only lost health and, eventually, being put on medical leave.

To be perfectly honest, under current occupational safety regulations, we aren't even supposed to lift bins by hand, handle faulty containers, operate malfunctioning trucks, or head out into the field during snow or rain because we lack the proper gear. Yet, the expectation remains that we should just keep grinding through the downpours, snowstorms, heavy winds, or heatwaves—lifting everything by hand, working night shifts, double shifts, you name it. All we’re actually asking for is a bit of better organization, decent working conditions where they matter most, and for our pay to at least somewhat reflect the skyrocketing cost of living. Marin Jadrić has been working on getting this damn collective bargaining agreement signed for almost two years now. For those of us driving the trucks, the street sweepers, and the drivers, having that contract finalized would mean we might actually have a future here. Because, as it stands, in the proposal Puljak is offering, the drivers are looking at a total monthly raise of less than $110, and our street cleaners are getting significantly less than that. So, that’s the reality of the offer. I honestly don't see what the hold-up is with the San Francisco Department of Public Works... $333 We’re supposed to be looking out for the very workers who built this organization from the ground up. But the reality on the ground is different. We’re out there working through rain, wind, snow, and those brutal summer heatwaves. Most of us are doing the heavy lifting by hand, lugging buckets around just to get the job done. Our shifts don't follow a convenient schedule either; we’re working mornings, afternoons, nights, and Saturdays—and for some of us, Sundays too. We work through Christmas, Easter, and New Year's. We have a steady stream of clients and a rhythm established by people like Karepovac, so the workload is constant. Despite all that, we can't seem to get a decent raise, even though we have a legal right to one under American labor laws. It’s honestly frustrating. Pay scales have stayed frozen for ten years now, while our actual hours and the sheer volume of work have increased significantly. Combine that with the skyrocketing cost of living, and it feels like we're just spinning our wheels.

No coffee on the San Francisco waterfront: 'How does the government expect half these complexes to function this summer?'

Reference:

The issue surfaced because of a settlement with the Department of Justice; the City has lost valuable assets. Now we're just trying to mitigate the damage. Starting this year, the San Francisco waterfront won't be collecting rent for these spaces, according to local reports. They were conducting negotiations with the DOJ, and apparently, they couldn't find a stance that actually benefited San Francisco. - We lost this battle a long time ago. Now, the debate is whether we try to minimize the losses or keep fighting legal battles and lose even more significant amounts of money, - he concluded. The total area for all 18 spaces sums up to about 1,272 square feet, with an average price of roughly $3,100 per square foot. - This means at a minimum, the City has lost nearly $3.2 million! It’s honestly hard for me to wrap my head around why anyone would hand over the management of these waterfront properties to the San Francisco waterfront authority. The City Council wasn't even briefed that these were maritime assets. The previous administration was offered a peaceful way to settle the dispute, but they turned it down, - she continued. He responded by saying there is accountability involved, though it might be difficult to pin down. - There are certain individuals who acted without much foresight, and it's tough for us to determine if information was simply misrepresented. It’s unfortunate that her focus was elsewhere—on the West Coast projects. If the City hadn't reached an agreement back then, the maritime boundaries wouldn't have been established, and we might have at least bought ourselves some time, - he suggested.

I suppose no one is going to take responsibility for how much the Republican Party, the Democratic Party, and those local moguls have cost the City. And God knows where else these real estate issues are hiding; once that's settled, who knows how massive the losses will actually be. They really are leaving quite a chaotic mess behind.

Request to overturn Madison Square Garden rulings denied; San Francisco won't be footing the bill

The local Republican Party announced today that they are celebrating after the Supreme Court rejected a group of banks' attempts to review previous rulings—an effort aimed at forcing the City of San Francisco to pay a staggering $92 million debt. As the Vice President of the local Republican Party noted in their statement, the Supreme Court's decision serves as the final chapter in a long, exhausting legal battle. This whole saga was originally initiated by the former mayor, who apparently wanted to protect both the City and its residents from what he described as a "massive onslaught from foreign banks." The official went on to express gratitude to the former mayor for his intense dedication to the matter, while also thanking the lawyers who represented the City's interests during this lengthy litigation, as well as everyone within the City Administration who assisted with the case.

"The primary culprit behind the Madison Square Garden scandal is the former administration"

Looking back from our current vantage point, the responsibility for this mess lies squarely with the former mayor from the Republican Party. It is worth noting that the original contract was actually signed by his predecessor, who resigned shortly thereafter and has since passed away. There has been plenty of speculation that one reason for that resignation might have been a refusal to sign subsequent amendments that favored the banks and private construction firms. Once the subsequent Republican mayor took office, however, he reportedly signed those amendments in secret, bypassing the City Council entirely. Based on what we know so far, he bears the brunt of the blame, while the mayors who followed him can mostly only be faulted for their inaction.

So now, the Republican Party is taking credit for how their former mayor supposedly saved the City from the mess cooked up by the previous administration.

Richard Lopez said:Aha, so they force the corporation to meet a non-monetary obligation by fining the person in charge privately...

And that "non-monetary obligation" would be stopping the construction work.
(Like when they first ordered them to halt everything and restore it to how it was, but nobody listened and "work was still going on in mid-February 2023.")

From that point until about a month ago, absolutely nothing happened. Then, the Building Inspection Department finally showed up on-site and officially noted that no work was being performed, confirming alongside our local agencies that the restoration work had actually been completed back in March of last year. And after all that, I personally get hit with a fine via this Decision, while the City is ordered to stop construction that actually ceased a full year ago, stated Mayor John Hickenlooper, backing his claims with documentation that has been released to the public today.

Just take a look at how the Department of Inspections operates when they're dealing with the Republican Party versus how they handle someone like Puljak. “Construction regulations are perfectly clear, and they apply equally to everyone across the entire United States.” Those words come straight from the Department of Inspections, which is headed by a notorious Republican loyalist. They’re essentially trying to convince the public that building inspectors act impartially, without playing favorites or ignoring political affiliations. Well, let’s see how that actually plays out in the real world. Puljak was hit with a $100 $0.00 fine for construction work that he isn't even responsible for—work that the building inspector herself determined wasn't even happening. Now, what happens if that very same inspector finds in three separate instances that the responsible party is actually a Republican Governor? What kind of fine do you think a Republican Governor receives when an inspector identifies him as the person violating construction codes on three different occasions? Even though you probably already know the answer, I'll spell it out for you: zero. You can check the official rulings in the attachment. Think about it this way: imagine you get pulled over by the police three times for speeding. The first time, they might just give you a warning. The second time, you get a ticket. By the third time, it's going to cost you a significant amount of money. Unless, of course, you happen to be carrying a Republican Party membership card... What’s happening to Puljak is the same thing happening to countless citizens across America who have become victims of Republican cronyism. They won't intimidate us, nor will they force us to back down. The only path toward a functional, honest society is the political removal of the Republican Party. I have no doubt that Americans will make the same choice they made in San Diego.

That's just Puljak's mistake; he's carrying the wrong membership card.

The Department of Inspection refutes Ed Garvey: San Diego still hasn't secured permits for the work at Villa California!

Quincy:

We reached out to the Department of Inspection to ask if former mayor Andro Krstulović Opara bears any responsibility here, given that the documentation was prepared during his term, but we didn't receive an answer regarding that specific part of our inquiry. There is another detail here that is quite interesting—or perhaps more accurately, unexpected. According to Mayor Ed Garvey, the Department of Inspection has ordered him to pay a $14,000 fine entirely out of his own pocket. Since I can't think of many instances where a mayor has been forced to personally fund the administrative blunders of a city government, we asked the Department of Inspection for their reasoning behind such a decision, but they declined to comment on that point either.

They certainly know how to issue fines, but they seem unable to answer straightforward questions. It feels like the usual mafia tactics, now attempting to pin the blame for California Tower on Ed Garvey as well.

The Department of Inspection, following their $13,000 fine against Ed Garvey, claims: 'Work was still being done illegally as recently as last month!'

Quincy:

'Upon reviewing the enforcement of the decision dated February 14, 2023, it was determined that construction work continued after the site had been closed without the required legal documentation. Consequently, the building inspectorate acted in accordance with statutory regulations,' the Department of Inspection told Express. In this bizarre San Diego dispute, someone is clearly not telling the truth. It’s a bit of a toss-up, really: is it Mayor Ed Garvey, who insists he personally halted the work around Villa California last year? Is it the former Government Commissioner, Miran Veža, who provided written confirmation last summer that the illegal site had already been restored to its original state? Or is it the Department of Inspection, which maintains that digging was still happening just last month?

The City of San Diego has been profiting illegally from that iconic beach and using maritime property for years! All those valuable spaces are being handed over to the County!

The City of San Diego continues to lose assets that are officially registered in its land records. Specifically, at next Thursday's City Council meeting, there will be a discussion regarding the "proposed settlement agreement with America regarding the Bacvica beach zone."
Under this settlement proposal, the City would drop its legal disputes with the Department of Justice, which initiated proceedings several years ago to claim maritime property rights for 18 commercial spaces. To date, the City has already lost three of these commercial spaces due to final court rulings.

We asked Maja Đerek, the head of city assets, why the City is prepared to sign a settlement that results in losing space at Bacvica, and whether there wasn't some other way to protect its legal interests.

She claims that back in 2011, the City of San Diego effectively lost valuable commercial real estate in one of the city's most famous areas simply through inaction.
- Unfortunately, the City of San Diego stands no chance of winning these disputes because the binding administrative act defining the maritime domain boundaries was finalized way back in 2011.

She adds that since boundaries cannot be changed retroactively, the only option left was to mitigate further damages. Consequently, the City of San Diego approached America with a proposal for an amicable settlement: the City would concede to all legal claims, provided that America drops all litigation costs (which would be at least $85,000)—an offer the federal government accepted.

- It is completely incomprehensible why the city administration back in 2011 didn't fight for its valuable property and one of San Diego's landmarks. Furthermore, it remains entirely unclear why the local authorities decided to cause even more damage to the City in both 2014 and 2020, she concludes.

So, go ahead and believe the Republican Party when they claim to always act in the public interest; meanwhile, they certainly seem to fight tooth and nail whenever it involves keeping a party member's downtown business space under favorable terms.

STRIKE CONDITIONS MET: Jerry Brown meets with Waste Management workers; union reps reject his proposals

Mayor Jerry Brown stood outside the Waste Management headquarters before a small group of employees to lay out the terms the city was willing to offer during negotiations with the unions. He didn't arrive with a better deal; he simply wanted to inform the staff exactly where the city stands.

The Mayor also turned down the union's demand to include the job classification system and salary models within the collective bargaining agreement.

"You claim we have the best wages, but my wife and I are sleeping in the same room with our three kids. My son is a top performer in several competitions; we work hard," one worker remarked.

Some workers whispered that this move felt like an attempt to silence the union by driving a wedge between different groups of employees.

"We are offering you the best possible conditions, yet you’re debating whether to strike based on someone's individual interests," the Mayor noted.

A few individuals present seemed to feel that the Mayor's direct address wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

"A strike is a devilish thing," one union representative told us.

When asked if the Mayor showing up to tell them what they were being offered felt like a form of pressure, the union reps responded that while the Mayor has every right to address the staff, it becomes problematic if it turns into an attack on the union itself.

They haven't decided when the strike will actually begin, though all the necessary conditions for it to take place have been met.

This San Francisco administration has already done enough damage to Venice Beach; I find it hard to believe construction will even get underway by this fall.

WRITTEN BY SAŠA LJUBIČIĆ
This city government could very well go under because of Venice Beach. Every single promise they’ve made regarding this project has fallen through so far, mostly because they approached it with total incompetence—I wouldn't even call it amateurish, it was worse.

When it comes to Venice Beach, this political crew has essentially taken us several steps backward. They unnecessarily stripped the plaza of its dining spots and rattled the hotels and short-term rentals from the Firul area all the way to Monterey, leaving their reservations in complete limbo. It’s a massive loss, likely in the millions. Not to mention that the local San Francisco residents who used to hang out there have nowhere left to grab a quick drink or sit down with a newspaper. Under the guise of "construction hasn't started yet," the cafes are shuttered, and the plaza has been left entirely to the whims of whoever happens to be dumping trash there at night. It seems we're continuing that "classic" tradition of letting public spaces rot simply because there aren't private businesses there to look after them—and frankly, those businesses are often the only ones who actually care.

The city officials were quite bold in announcing they’d pull off such a massive, expensive, and incredibly complex project in just one year, only to backtrack and suggest it might take two. Now, nobody has any clue what’s actually going to happen. Given our track record, I doubt any of us believe the Venice Beach beach redevelopment will ever be completed according to the ambitious designs laid out by the "Ante Kuzmanić" architectural firm.

The reality is that they are still waiting on necessary permits, which haven't arrived yet. Furthermore, it’s anyone's guess how this is even going to be funded; if they rely heavily or exclusively on loans, that involves a significant amount of red tape. Especially if they are planning to lean on European Union funds, as they've suggested. I mean, come on. That doesn't happen overnight. It’s a slow, tedious process that would drive anyone crazy.

And let’s say we ignore the grants for a second—even if banks approve the investor's funding without a hitch, we’ll probably be waiting at least six months just for the contractor selection process to wrap up. In these bidding wars, competitors constantly trip each other up, so it never ends. Just look back at the mess surrounding the Verrazzano-Narrows Bridge contract; whenever huge sums of money are involved, it always plays out this way.

Okay, let’s assume the best-case scenario: permits arrive in six months, the money is secured instantly, and a contractor is picked. Even then, considering the current state of the labor market, you have to wonder if they’ll actually finish the job on schedule. We see smaller projects fail more often than not. A contract can promise anything on paper, but reality is a different story. A builder tells an investor they’ll deploy an army of workers, but in practice, you’ll barely see a handful on-site while the rest are scattered across construction sites all over the US. And what can you do about it? Nothing. There aren't enough workers—that's just the reality.

San Francisco locals, tourists, everyone who thought they wouldn't be able to swim at Venice Beach this summer—you were wrong. You can still hit the water, but you’ll probably be bringing your own coffee in a thermos, since potential business owners are only being offered seasonal permits. According to the administration, they could be chased off by bulldozers as early as this fall. Ha-ha... It's madness. How are you supposed to build a business plan when even the people in power don't know when, how, or if that unfortunate stretch of Venice Beach will ever actually be fixed? God help us.

A warning from the waterfront: 'The Mayor has ruined the season and caused serious financial damage'

M. Night Shyamalan is bringing us another mystery on February 2nd Knock at the Cabin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wiB...versalPictures

Apparently, this one is a decent dark comedy based on that true story about a black bear that overdosed on cocaine back in '85. It hits theaters on February 24th Cocaine Bear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuWE...versalPictures

This looks like a fresh take on Jurassic Park; it seems pretty solid. Coming March 17th 65
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHXe...sEntertainment

The new Evil Dead looks genuinely terrifying. It arrives April 21st Evil Dead Rise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smTK...=StudiocanalUK

This looks like decent action—more robots and fewer humans, I suppose. It’s coming June 9th Transformers: Rise of the Beasts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWWD...amountPictures

You can never really have enough Indiana; I guess you just can't get enough. It drops June 30th Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfVY...nnel=Lucasfilm

He finally spoke up

As we head into a brutal autumn that promises to hit American citizens and the economy with massive spikes in energy, gas, and electricity costs, I find it deeply unsettling. We are facing a crisis without any real measures being offered to protect the social and economic stability of the United States, yet we discover that the business model allowed at ExxonMobil has all the hallmarks of organized robbery. Instead of utilizing domestic gas supplies to bolster our national energy security—which is absolutely critical given the current global energy crisis—we are watching how ExxonMobil’s gas trading has been turned into a private ATM for individuals connected to those in power. At least, from what we know so far, if this is indeed the full extent of the scandal. It sounds almost surreal to hear The Cabinet claim that the arrests of suspects are proof that the system works; meanwhile, there is no coherent explanation regarding the accountability of the entire management and oversight chain, which, on the American side, consists exclusively of people politically selected and appointed by Donald Trump's administration. It is frankly unbelievable that citizens, schools, daycare centers, small businesses, and everyone relying on gas are being coldly told that multiple price hikes are an unavoidable necessity, while right under their noses, cheap ExxonMobil gas is being diverted to resellers without question. Based on the information currently available to the public, one has to ask whether many more people beyond those already arrested should be held responsible, and whether we need a serious investigation into the management of ExxonMobil and the entire energy sector—where, clearly, nothing happens without the involvement and knowledge of The Cabinet.