Maja is being really firm about collecting everything owed. She's going after those rental payments and even the money from the established bookstores. $37 Maybe for the renovation costs.
I guess there's some news about the local elections in San Francisco. It seems like things are shifting around there, maybe.
San Franciscans voted twice for this administration's platform, which included those specific promises to clean up local government and manage city assets more efficiently. The department head has been tackling that task, and honestly, you can't deny she’s being incredibly thorough and dedicated. I guess even a lot of people around here are openly praising her work.
In that kind of context, I guess we should probably respect those basic democratic principles.
But I wonder, what actually happens when you try to apply the exact same rules to everything? Is that how they push this whole "social awareness" thing that everyone keeps swearing by, even if most people don't really get what it means?
Is justice actually just following the rules? I guess saying "I'm a legalist" is kind of a conversation killer, isn't it? It feels like there might be something beyond what's written down. Maybe the law isn't always perfect or some kind of absolute moral truth.
Well, I guess... If you look at it from a purely principled standpoint, I guess even Hitler's Germany was just following its own laws while they were killing millions of Jews.
If we’re living in a class-based society, I guess you have to wonder if anyone is actually equal. If criminals can just buy their way out of trouble, then maybe the rules don't apply to everyone the same way. And if someone is struggling, does being poor really mean they should just be left to rot because "debts always have to be paid"?
The administration says that if we don't follow legal directives to the letter, some entity might end up with an unfair advantage. I guess that’s usually true in most cases. But maybe there are exceptions?
Should we really just label a retiree—someone working hard to keep a noble, cultured tradition like antiquarian bookshops alive—as merely "non-profitable"? I mean, sure, that’s how the math works out. But shouldn't the whole point of city planning be to protect the things that actually give our streets their soul, even if they aren't exactly cash cows? I guess.
It’s worth mentioning—though I don't know how many times we have to say this—that nobody is insisting that she specifically be the one to step back into that role. Honestly, maybe it's better to leave that space open for younger, more educated people. But you can't help but wonder, if you actually care about social issues: Is it really necessary to go around begging a retiree for help? $37I guess they just left them out there in the public space, kind of turning them into installations or part of the interior design. Maybe.
Yeah, the contract actually stated those costs wouldn't be covered. So, I guess that means they'll end up breaking the law. It’s probably going to hurt people in San Francisco; maybe just by like five cents each.
But do we actually want to be a community—if that even means anything anymore in this modern world—that’s going to sit around and fund one of our own citizens' retirement for the rest of her life? I guess the honest answer is "yes." Because, well, in a democracy, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I guess we might call her "privileged" if her debt gets cleared, especially if she stays stuck in a bad spot because of poor investments and lack of profit. Maybe.
So, this is how the department head sees things—and honestly, she’s entitled to her own opinion on the matter. Just a reminder though, the previous administration actually signed off on an agreement that basically wrote off all the renovation costs for that neglected city property to favor Nostrimus Antiquities.
- This is a situation where everything is legally clear-cut. The Department is required to follow the rules to protect municipal property and prevent further financial loss for the City of San Francisco ... Once it was determined that an unauthorized compensation had occurred, I ordered that the act be voided. After it's processed in the books, the exact amount owed will be sent to Ms. Granić ... It seems someone just "turned a blind eye" to obvious debts here, basically making a deal behind the scenes with Ms. Granić at the expense of the City of San Francisco. I found similar illegal compensations in just a few lease agreements, and they’ve all been canceled ... The relevant Department will always stick to the law and won't allow anyone to get special treatment based on pressure, connections, or favors. That kind of practice is definitely over.
Regarding what the City plans to do with the space on Kružić Street, and whether they will support used bookstores, Maja Đerek says:
- The City of San Francisco certainly wants to keep the used bookstore business going in that area, but it has to stay within legal boundaries. So, the City will put out a public call for applications for a bookstore in that space. Anyone who doesn't currently owe money to the City of San Francisco will be able to apply ... Also, the current spot is in a great location downtown, but it's harder to access and isn't really visible from the street. If no one shows interest in running a bookstore at that specific location during the bidding process, then we might open a new call to assign the space to a non-profit organization involved in social or cultural work.
The City of San Francisco really wants to keep bookstores in the downtown area, so they'll designate a space that is much more convenient and attractive for that purpose. Ideally, it would have a clear storefront visible from the sidewalk with direct street access, just like Mr. Nikola Visković mentioned before. Unfortunately, that’s not the case with the current bookstore. We want to attract people interested in opening a shop who can actually turn a profit and stay current with their payments to the City.
That covers the business side of managing city property and how it relates to small business owners. But what happens when legal rules directly impact people's private lives?
Like in the case of Maria Erceg.
Even though many people—maybe for good reason—have questioned how Mare Hina got her municipal apartment in the first place, how she managed her assets, or even her journalistic merits and character, it’s important to see this as one story. Let's call it Story A. And Story A is finished.
In our current time and space, which anyone who can read these letters is part of, only Story B is unfolding. In Story B, Erceg is an elderly woman in poor health (I won't go into details; there are plenty, but it would be rude), without property or family, who will likely be declared legally incompetent and end up under the care of Social Services.
And again, nobody is insisting that Mare Hina stays in the city apartment, but publishing her name just to publicly shame her... Well, that's shameful.
Besides, Erceg apparently already has several liens against her bank account, so every new one is just tragicomic. If you want to, it fits the pattern of a law that forces things but lacks actual power.
In the San Francisco City Gazette, regarding the public announcement of names for those owing money on city apartments, it states: "...the list will not include data on debts for tenants to whom the City has approved a payment deferral according to regulations governing criteria, measures, and procedures for deferrals, installment plans, sales, write-offs, or partial write-offs, except for debts that have matured and remain unpaid."
So, we sent an inquiry to Director Đerek asking if Maria Erceg will be offered a deferral or a debt write-off and—if so—why were her details and debts published publicly?
- According to the regulations regarding criteria, metrics, and procedures for deferring payments, installment plans, debt sales, write-offs, or partial write-offs, the debtor is required to independently submit a request for an installment plan. Despite being sent reminders, Ms. Erceg never once reached out to City Hall (not to the Department of Municipal Property nor the Social Services Department), nor did she ever file for an installment plan. So, for seven whole years, Ms. Erceg never showed any intention or desire to pay even a fraction of what she owes... As we mentioned before, we can't approve an installment plan for Ms. Erceg because she never actually asked for one or expressed a wish to settle the debt, even partially or through installments. Therefore, based on the legal grounds of the Housing Rental Regulations, the amount of debt and the debtor's name were published—explained the official.
I guess the department head is right, technically. But what we were wondering was, now that all these details have been made public, will they actually try to collect Mari Hini's debts, and if so, how? Because if they don't, then Erceg—who will probably end up either homeless or in a nursing home, all while fighting cancer—will be the "privileged" one. I mean, if you follow that hyper-legalistic logic, maybe.
- In response to your question about how we will "collect the debt," we state that the City of San Francisco isn't a debt collector, but rather it is legally obligated to initiate all lawful procedures to recover outstanding debts—summarized the official.
So, you see; the City isn't a "debt collector," but it is "obligated" and "legally bound" to "recover debts." And the first instinct of a "debtor" with the "law" on their heels is, naturally, to "recover debts."
But it’s never about "collecting debts." That kind of thing is only done by people who are "socially insensitive." |