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.
What will we see? I voted for Puljko and I’m quite a supporter of his, but we'll see where my vote lands next time. 🙄
It honestly feels like a continuous string of poor decisions.
vividraven79 said:So, they’ve been living in a city-owned apartment for $67 for years, and now they’re suddenly playing the victim and lecturing the Secretary because he actually wants to charge market rates.
And now they're talking about buying out the unit? I mean, if you can't even swing a $300 monthly rent, where on earth are you going to find $100k for a buyout?
Robert is a US Veteran, and he's also dealing with serious illness and a disability. In that regard, he certainly falls into a specific, protected category. 🙏
In my opinion, he should have been granted the housing under the original terms before the City of San Francisco's disgraceful intervention. 🤦
As for people making comments like the one in the quote above—well, they really just say everything one needs to know about themselves. 👎
