Eric Adams - Mayor of San Francisco
in Political Scene ·
Emily Smith6 said:A veteran battling cancer has shared a heartbreaking plea, claiming the City of San Francisco is effectively forcing him onto the streets. In a devastating statement, he expressed that he would have preferred to have died in combat rather than face his current circumstances. Meanwhile, there are growing calls for the Department of Veterans Affairs to step in and address the situation before it escalates further.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.”
It’s an interesting situation; I suppose we will see who is ultimately in the right here. They seem to have gone quite deep into this effort to "clean up" the city, and now there are threats of retaliation looming over them.
Maja Đerek is sharing this publicly on her Facebook profile:
Ever since I stepped into my role as the head of the Department of Public Property, I’ve been busy drafting formal correspondence to the Ministry to ensure we finally resolve all these types of cases. We actually took the initiative to organize a meeting back in February—the only one we've managed to get on the books so far—but it was abruptly canceled. They told us they would follow up with a new date, but since then? Absolute radio silence from the Ministry. Not a single letter, not even a postcard.
As far as we can tell, Robert Franjić is currently occupying a 350-square-foot apartment owned by the city—and he’s doing so without any legal right to be there. According to the official municipal records, he was first flagged as an unauthorized occupant back on January 1, 1998. We honestly don't have any information regarding how he originally gained access to the property, but it certainly wasn't through any legitimate or lawful process.
Unfortunately, the City of San Francisco doesn't actually have the legal authority to legalize these statuses or sign off on any lease agreements without first running a formal public bidding process. Under our current laws, the only entity that can bypass a public tender to award an apartment directly to a veteran is the Ministry of Veterans Affairs—and even then, they have to strictly follow Article 83, Section 2 of the Veterans Act. That specific part of the law outlines how housing assistance is handled, which includes the right to publicly lease apartments owned by the U.S. government for a ten-year term, with the option to extend once that period wraps up.
Here’s the thing—even though the government's own public records show they have over 600 vacant apartments sitting idle, the Ministry of Veterans Affairs is refusing to allocate them to our veterans. It’s incredibly frustrating because there is absolutely zero transparency here—there isn't even a publicly available waiting list, nor is there any clear record of which units have been assigned or an official inventory of the empty properties owned by the Republic of America. To make matters worse, the state has actually set up a system where State Real Estate LLC leases these government-owned units at full market rates based on a "highest bidder" principle. It just doesn't seem right.
So, here’s the deal—it seems like the Ministry of Veterans Affairs is refusing to actually follow the very law they proposed themselves. Even though there are clear opportunities available to handle the housing situation, they won't take the lead. Instead, they just keep passing the buck back to the City.
On top of all that, the City of San Francisco put out a call for applications last year to lease apartments to residents facing social hardship. After looking through the submitted requests, it turns out that Robert Franjić didn't actually submit an application for any of them.
As we have pointed out before—and this is a point we stand by—there are currently 70 individuals and families with verified social needs just waiting for housing. The reality is that the City of San Francisco simply doesn't have the capacity to accommodate them all right now because there isn't enough available inventory. This issue is being compounded by a specific legal headache—the fact that the Republic of America is currently being registered as the owner of various properties that were previously under the management of the City due to recent legislative changes. It’s a complicated situation, to say the least. To make matters even more pressing, the list of applicants also includes veterans who applied through the public tender process.
Furthermore, even if Mr. Robert Franjić had actually applied for the position, he wouldn't qualify for an apartment allocation—period. He has been registered as a resident in Maui since 1984, and the requirement clearly stated residency in San Francisco. On top of that, he owes a staggering $7,226.19 based on his usage of the unit—that includes rent, utility fees, and NUV. It’s worth noting here that he was only responsible for a $30 monthly fee for unauthorized use of the apartment until 2020, which jumped to $64.70 per month after that. This essentially means he hasn't been paying his usage fees for quite some time now.
Ultimately, the City of San Francisco is obligated to initiate the eviction and debt collection process—though, strictly speaking, the city doesn't handle the actual removal; that falls to the courts once a final, enforceable judgment is issued.
As we have done in all similar instances, we reached out to Robert Franjić simply to request a peaceful handover of the property. We aren't looking to force an eviction. Once the legal proceedings officially begin, everything else depends entirely on the court system and how long their timeline takes.
Regarding any possibility of him buying the apartment, the City of San Francisco has no legal authority to sell it to Mr. Franjić—he has no legal right to be living there and hasn't paid his usage fees for years.
We are waiting for the Ministry to finally step up and allocate vacant apartments owned by the Republic of America to all people facing these kinds of situations in San Francisco, especially since the resources are available.
It sounds like just another case where someone hasn't paid even a tiny fee for illegally occupying an apartment for years. He’s officially registered elsewhere and doesn't even meet the basic legal requirements to apply for a city apartment in San Francisco.
But honestly, for the Republican Party and their little puppets in the local media, this is a perfect opportunity to throw some shade at John Hickenlooper. They’re sitting on 600 apartments they refuse to distribute—mostly because if they actually handed them out, their buddies wouldn't be able to rent them out illegally.