#621 ·
Dana Martin95 said:The SD is questioning the local government again. I guess they really have to follow the law to the letter on these two cases, or maybe they're just being too cold about it.
I guess maybe there isn't much to say about it.
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."
Those two are legendary human rights activists—especially when they're fighting for their girlfriends. 🤣
The difference between the Republican Party and people like this is night and day. 🤔
The post claims that certain officials haven't checked in with the local authorities yet to determine if this individual qualifies for assistance from the Department of Social Services. It makes you wonder—what exactly are they trying to hide?
The whistleblower is finally bringing some order to the chaos: We’ll be moving the local Republican Party out of their offices soon, and hopefully, the state will just hand over some new space for them.
The Mayor of San Diego is making some waves regarding how the city handles its social services. There’s a growing conversation about whether the current administration is actually delivering on its promises or if the bureaucracy is just spinning its wheels. It feels like a classic case of big ideas meeting the harsh reality of municipal red tape. When you look at how the Department of Social Services operates, there seems to be a disconnect between the high-level policy decisions and what’s actually happening on the ground. It’s similar to when a major tech company announces a revolutionary new product, only for users to find out the software is buggy and the rollout is a mess. You have the vision, but the execution is lagging. At the end of the day, the citizens of San Diego deserve more than just political rhetoric; they need functional systems that work for everyone. Whether it's through the Department of Public Works or social programs, efficiency shouldn't be an afterthought—it should be the standard.
"Look, I’m not bothered by the personal attacks or the criticism directed at my work," says the head of the San Diego Department of Public Works, who has recently been under fire for reclaiming four city-owned apartments previously held by individuals with special ties to the administration. "And you know why? It's because I'm constantly thinking about our fellow citizens who have been treated unfairly—people who actually qualified for housing but were passed over because they didn't have the right connections." The decision follows an audit which revealed that those individuals no longer met the requirements for the housing, as they either owned other properties, carried significant debt, or were working in different cities. For her, this isn't just about following the letter of the law, though she maintains that strict adherence to regulations is everything. "It's ultimately a matter of justice," she added. "If anything, the backlash only motivates me to ensure we follow the rules to the letter."
One of them is a former journalist who was handed a 74-square-meter apartment right in the heart of downtown San Diego through a private, behind-the-scenes decision made by the previous city administration. As far as the current leadership is concerned, whether she qualifies as low-income or not isn't even part of their investigation.
Marija never reached out to the Department of Social Services, neither before nor after. We are legally required to run a public tender for social housing. We’ve already had about 70 applicants come forward, and we are currently in the middle of verifying everyone's eligibility and social status. As for her, she never actually passed a social services screening; she was simply granted the apartment as a special personnel placement because she was considered an individual of interest to the City.
Why did she get selected when other journalists didn't? As a single person, she might eventually qualify for a 30-square-meter apartment. We actually tried reaching out to her through formal non-payment notices regarding her rent, but she never responded—not in person and not through anyone else.
It’s been seven years and they still haven't paid their rent to the city.
Basically, she hasn't paid her rent in seven years and now owes the city over $7,000. It’s not as simple as just kicking her out, though; according to local officials, the matter has to go through formal legal proceedings first. They also mentioned that the Department of Public Works is dealing with a massive backlog, as these kinds of issues have been piling up for years.
People struggle to adapt when they realize there are actual procedures to follow. To be honest, back in the day, everything used to be handled through "who you knew." Most of the files we opened were missing key pieces of documentation. I’m trying to ensure everyone is treated exactly the same, but that only works if we actually follow the law. Sometimes, hunting down the necessary paperwork makes me feel like a detective in my own office—noted one official during a recent audit of all city-owned commercial properties.
- "We’ve run into cases of unauthorized subletting," she explained. "Some people are used to just walking into City Hall and asking for a space to be handed to them, completely bypassing the mandatory public bidding process. Honestly, our first hurdle is teaching people that the bidding process actually exists. People try reaching out to me through all sorts of backchannels or mutual connections. Sometimes, if they think they have a legitimate claim, they’ll even email the Mayor directly, thinking they can pressure me into bending the rules—but that’s just not how it works." She noted that her audit revealed several political parties were occupying city-owned properties, even though the federal government is responsible for providing spaces to parliamentary parties.
- "Everyone whose contract expired has received an official notice to vacate. That includes everyone from the Democrats to various smaller fringe parties. The liberals have been reasonable about it and will be handing over their spaces downtown," she said, while still awaiting the final ruling on her wrongful termination lawsuit against the Federal Property Agency.
- "My termination was ruled unlawful. They've filed an appeal, but once the decision is final, if the initial court ruling stands, they’ll be required to reinstate me and pay out everything I'm owed, including my back pay. It was officially determined that I didn't violate any work protocols. Quite frankly, they just wanted me gone because they didn't like me enforcing the rules," she concluded.