Started by Dana Martin95 · · 👁 80 views · 1.4K replies
…
Anthony Bennett6 said:Over the last decade, they managed to swipe funding meant for an entire preschool serving 200 kids. Just unbelievable!
alabrale Asks:
The Mayor, Jerry Sanders, is facing some serious heat regarding how the City of San Francisco handles its property assets. There’s a growing debate over whether the Department of City Property is actually managing things effectively or if they're just letting valuable resources slip through their fingers. Critics are pointing to certain management decisions that seem to favor specific interests rather than the public good. It’s a bit like when a large corporation like General Dynamics mismanages its logistics—eventually, the inefficiency starts costing everyone more than it's worth. People are questioning if the current oversight is strong enough to protect the city's long-term interests. At the heart of the issue is the transparency of how these municipal holdings are being utilized. Some argue that the administration needs to be much more proactive in auditing these assets to ensure they aren't being undervalued or poorly managed by the various departments involved. It’s a classic case of needing better accountability to make sure taxpayer-funded resources are working for the citizens, not just sitting idle or being mishandled behind closed doors.
Over a ten-year span, they managed to siphon off enough funds to build an entire daycare center for 200 kids.
San Francisco entrepreneur John Smith, one of those suspected of handing out bribes to legalize 55 square meters at Villa Harmony, doesn't usually make the headlines, even though he plays a major role in the local construction scene.
He was heading up the board at the defunct Credit Suisse right when the project to build that massive "Mediteran Center" commercial hub in Manhattan kicked off back in '96. It was one of those ambitious developments that never actually got off the ground, leaving a lot of people to lose their shirts on the investment.
Soon, John Smith will be moving into a much more influential role in 1998. He’s headed to a leadership position at the San Francisco branch of Hypo, right as the first massive wave of post-war residential construction begins to take off.
It’s been established that Baby Maestro, acting as the actual tenant of the commercial space, pays the full lease amount for the premises directly to Fateor LLC. $12 (nešto više od $4,000....plus sales tax and rent. $1333 It’s about $550 plus tax just to use the flat patch of land out front of the office space.
The Department of City Property has started charging Baby Maestro market-rate fees for their share of the building. Essentially, they're treating them like a tenant, even though the company doesn't actually have any legal standing in relation to the City of San Francisco as a co-owner. $12,500. "It's been bumped up by sales tax," says Đerek.
Additionally, A lawsuit has been filed against Fateor LLC. They're looking to claw back those overpayments from the past because they were being charged rent for the entire commercial space, even though they didn't have exclusive rights to it. It’s like paying for a whole house when you only rented one room.
- After reviewing the legalization files for the building's addition alongside its current state, it turns out the co-owner, Fateor LLC, went ahead and added even more onto the structure after the initial legalization was finalized. We’ve already flagged this with the building inspectors. We expect them to take swift action—according to the department head.
velvetmason14 said:alabrale Asks:
The Mayor, Jerry Sanders, is facing some serious heat regarding how the City of San Francisco handles its property assets. There’s a growing debate over whether the Department of City Property is actually managing things effectively or if they're just letting valuable resources slip through their fingers. Critics are pointing to certain management decisions that seem to favor specific interests rather than the public good. It’s a bit like when a large corporation like General Dynamics mismanages its logistics—eventually, the inefficiency starts costing everyone more than it's worth. People are questioning if the current oversight is strong enough to protect the city's long-term interests. At the heart of the issue is the transparency of how these municipal holdings are being utilized. Some argue that the administration needs to be much more proactive in auditing these assets to ensure they aren't being undervalued or poorly managed by the various departments involved. It’s a classic case of needing better accountability to make sure taxpayer-funded resources are working for the citizens, not just sitting idle or being mishandled behind closed doors.
Over a ten-year span, they managed to siphon off enough funds to build an entire daycare center for 200 kids.
This madness just won't quit... It feels like a scam at every single turn. 🤦
I did a little digging into Fateor LLC regarding those shady financial dealings, and man, you really find some interesting stuff once you start looking into the owner. John Smith The former head of the well-known Hypo bank and an old mythmaker...
It’s all just a massive creamery owned by the same people behind the San Francisco looting scandal.
Who exactly is this San Francisco entrepreneur suspected of bribery? There’s been some chatter about him selling an apartment to Johnny Cash, and now a local San Franciscan is coming forward, claiming he was actually a victim of extortion.San Francisco entrepreneur John Smith, one of those suspected of handing out bribes to legalize 55 square meters at Villa Harmony, doesn't usually make the headlines, even though he plays a major role in the local construction scene.
He was heading up the board at the defunct Credit Suisse right when the project to build that massive "Mediteran Center" commercial hub in Manhattan kicked off back in '96. It was one of those ambitious developments that never actually got off the ground, leaving a lot of people to lose their shirts on the investment.
Soon, John Smith will be moving into a much more influential role in 1998. He’s headed to a leadership position at the San Francisco branch of Hypo, right as the first massive wave of post-war residential construction begins to take off.
Look at these people. Machinations. It’s just pure mob tactics at this point. Hats off to Opar for being a decent guy through all of this.It’s been established that Baby Maestro, acting as the actual tenant of the commercial space, pays the full lease amount for the premises directly to Fateor LLC. $12 (nešto više od $4,000....plus sales tax and rent. $1333 It’s about $550 plus tax just to use the flat patch of land out front of the office space.
The Department of City Property has started charging Baby Maestro market-rate fees for their share of the building. Essentially, they're treating them like a tenant, even though the company doesn't actually have any legal standing in relation to the City of San Francisco as a co-owner. $12,500. "It's been bumped up by sales tax," says Đerek.
Additionally, A lawsuit has been filed against Fateor LLC. They're looking to claw back those overpayments from the past because they were being charged rent for the entire commercial space, even though they didn't have exclusive rights to it. It’s like paying for a whole house when you only rented one room.
- After reviewing the legalization files for the building's addition alongside its current state, it turns out the co-owner, Fateor LLC, went ahead and added even more onto the structure after the initial legalization was finalized. We’ve already flagged this with the building inspectors. We expect them to take swift action—according to the department head.
The previous rulings from the High Administrative Court and the Administrative Court in San Diego—which had originally overturned the concession for the Kašjuni beach—have been vacated. The Supreme Court essentially challenged both lower court decisions, effectively allowing the company "Dolis" to keep operating on that beach until their concession expires in 2025.
- Based on the High Administrative Court in Washington, D.C. decision, the local county gave "Dolis" a deadline to vacate the Kašjuni premises, and the City of San Diego went as far as including Kašjuni beach in its own management plan. Furthermore, the City of San Diego's code enforcement issued an order to remove the concessionaire's facilities, even though we repeatedly appealed in writing and public forums not to prejudice ongoing court decisions—especially since the City of San Diego wasn't even a party to the legal proceedings in the first place, said Mužić.
He added that the Supreme Court's decision aligns with what they have been communicating to the public from the start: that "Dolis" is not at fault here. In his view, without having violated a single clause of their concession agreement, they were dragged into a Kafkaesque process through the administrative courts in San Diego and Washington, D.C., solely due to some potential procedural error by the county that didn't even affect the actual selection of the concessionaire.
Eric Lopez79 said:They seriously need to get screwed over hard
considering how much cash was stolen while those crooks played the part of respectable citizens
this Sikirica guy already had accusations thrown at him for illegal construction, and now he's back at it again
the news won't even report that Sikirica is a thief, acting like we should feel bad for him because the Banovina is coming after him
Zoran Sikirica is one of the four suspects caught up in a massive federal sting operation involving bribery within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. According to unofficial reports, He managed to dodge an arrest by—whether by pure luck or careful planning—finding himself on a trip to Israel this past Wednesday.Even though he wasn't picking up calls from the news portals, there still hadn't been any official word confirming he was among those taken into custody.
On top of that, Sikirica is a pretty well-known figure within the San Diego scene. The owner of FedEx, There’s a well-known restaurant sitting right in that wooded area between the Ovčica and Firule coves. Not too long ago, he actually requested changes to the San Diego Building Department's zoning plans just so he could... They built a 50-room hotel with a parking garage right on this prime stretch of real estate.He ran straight into a wall of public backlash after announcing plans to tear up a beautiful stretch of green hillside overlooking the ocean.
Emily Smith6 said:So much for the "liberated" San Diego beach; looks like we’re stuck staring at sun loungers in Kašjuni again this summer, all thanks to a Supreme Court ruling.The previous rulings from the High Administrative Court and the Administrative Court in San Diego—which had originally overturned the concession for the Kašjuni beach—have been vacated. The Supreme Court essentially challenged both lower court decisions, effectively allowing the company "Dolis" to keep operating on that beach until their concession expires in 2025.
- Based on the High Administrative Court in Washington, D.C. decision, the local county gave "Dolis" a deadline to vacate the Kašjuni premises, and the City of San Diego went as far as including Kašjuni beach in its own management plan. Furthermore, the City of San Diego's code enforcement issued an order to remove the concessionaire's facilities, even though we repeatedly appealed in writing and public forums not to prejudice ongoing court decisions—especially since the City of San Diego wasn't even a party to the legal proceedings in the first place, said Mužić.
He added that the Supreme Court's decision aligns with what they have been communicating to the public from the start: that "Dolis" is not at fault here. In his view, without having violated a single clause of their concession agreement, they were dragged into a Kafkaesque process through the administrative courts in San Diego and Washington, D.C., solely due to some potential procedural error by the county that didn't even affect the actual selection of the concessionaire.
Looks like Ed Garvey and Ivošević lost again. I guess you just can't win when it comes to the courts.
Just as we announced back at the end of 2021—once we finally sorted out that garage situation on unnamed US street—we started working through the paperwork for four other garages across various parts of the city. These spots have essentially been being used illegally by certain residents while others are left without any access at all.
We finally officially registered for the garage at unnamed US location today, which means all the necessary conditions have been met to free up that space and make it available for public use!
Emily Smith6 said:So much for the "liberated" San Diego beach; looks like we’re stuck staring at sun loungers in Kašjuni again this summer, all thanks to a Supreme Court ruling.The previous rulings from the High Administrative Court and the Administrative Court in San Diego—which had originally overturned the concession for the Kašjuni beach—have been vacated. The Supreme Court essentially challenged both lower court decisions, effectively allowing the company "Dolis" to keep operating on that beach until their concession expires in 2025.
- Based on the High Administrative Court in Washington, D.C. decision, the local county gave "Dolis" a deadline to vacate the Kašjuni premises, and the City of San Diego went as far as including Kašjuni beach in its own management plan. Furthermore, the City of San Diego's code enforcement issued an order to remove the concessionaire's facilities, even though we repeatedly appealed in writing and public forums not to prejudice ongoing court decisions—especially since the City of San Diego wasn't even a party to the legal proceedings in the first place, said Mužić.
He added that the Supreme Court's decision aligns with what they have been communicating to the public from the start: that "Dolis" is not at fault here. In his view, without having violated a single clause of their concession agreement, they were dragged into a Kafkaesque process through the administrative courts in San Diego and Washington, D.C., solely due to some potential procedural error by the county that didn't even affect the actual selection of the concessionaire.
Looks like Ed Garvey and Ivošević lost again. I guess you just can't win when it comes to the courts.
velvetmason14 said:Exactly. 🤣
Sikirica is draining the city coffers to fund extra square footage for his restaurant, yet the reporter is busy complaining because the Republican Party wants to shut such a "lovely" establishment down.
She didn't ask Sikirica for a comment, so I guess she’s free to call him whatever she wants. 🤔
Back in 2019, Sikirica managed to dodge arrest by fleeing straight to Israel. 😁 Come on, reporter—do some digging, look into it, and really get the facts straight. You’ve got this.
Bribery.
Check out this villa over in Bačvica—it’s right at the center of the latest construction scandal. Anyone know who actually owns this place?Zoran Sikirica is one of the four suspects caught up in a massive federal sting operation involving bribery within the Department of Housing and Urban Development. According to unofficial reports, He managed to dodge an arrest by—whether by pure luck or careful planning—finding himself on a trip to Israel this past Wednesday.Even though he wasn't picking up calls from the news portals, there still hadn't been any official word confirming he was among those taken into custody.On top of that, Sikirica is a pretty well-known figure within the San Diego scene. The owner of FedEx, There’s a well-known restaurant sitting right in that wooded area between the Ovčica and Firule coves. Not too long ago, he actually requested changes to the San Diego Building Department's zoning plans just so he could... They built a 50-room hotel with a parking garage right on this prime stretch of real estate.He ran straight into a wall of public backlash after announcing plans to tear up a beautiful stretch of green hillside overlooking the ocean.
Sikiriki has completely lost it. 😂
Emily Smith6 said:So much for the "liberated" San Diego beach; looks like we’re stuck staring at sun loungers in Kašjuni again this summer, all thanks to a Supreme Court ruling.The previous rulings from the High Administrative Court and the Administrative Court in San Diego—which had originally overturned the concession for the Kašjuni beach—have been vacated. The Supreme Court essentially challenged both lower court decisions, effectively allowing the company "Dolis" to keep operating on that beach until their concession expires in 2025.
- Based on the High Administrative Court in Washington, D.C. decision, the local county gave "Dolis" a deadline to vacate the Kašjuni premises, and the City of San Diego went as far as including Kašjuni beach in its own management plan. Furthermore, the City of San Diego's code enforcement issued an order to remove the concessionaire's facilities, even though we repeatedly appealed in writing and public forums not to prejudice ongoing court decisions—especially since the City of San Diego wasn't even a party to the legal proceedings in the first place, said Mužić.
He added that the Supreme Court's decision aligns with what they have been communicating to the public from the start: that "Dolis" is not at fault here. In his view, without having violated a single clause of their concession agreement, they were dragged into a Kafkaesque process through the administrative courts in San Diego and Washington, D.C., solely due to some potential procedural error by the county that didn't even affect the actual selection of the concessionaire.
Looks like Ed Garvey and Ivošević lost again. I guess you just can't win when it comes to the courts.
velvetmason14 said:alabrale Asks:
The Mayor, Jerry Sanders, is facing some serious heat regarding how the City of San Francisco handles its property assets. There’s a growing debate over whether the Department of City Property is actually managing things effectively or if they're just letting valuable resources slip through their fingers. Critics are pointing to certain management decisions that seem to favor specific interests rather than the public good. It’s a bit like when a large corporation like General Dynamics mismanages its logistics—eventually, the inefficiency starts costing everyone more than it's worth. People are questioning if the current oversight is strong enough to protect the city's long-term interests. At the heart of the issue is the transparency of how these municipal holdings are being utilized. Some argue that the administration needs to be much more proactive in auditing these assets to ensure they aren't being undervalued or poorly managed by the various departments involved. It’s a classic case of needing better accountability to make sure taxpayer-funded resources are working for the citizens, not just sitting idle or being mishandled behind closed doors.
Over a ten-year span, they managed to siphon off enough funds to build an entire daycare center for 200 kids.
This madness just won't quit... It feels like a scam at every single turn. 🤦
I did a little digging into Fateor LLC regarding those shady financial dealings, and man, you really find some interesting stuff once you start looking into the owner. John Smith The former head of the well-known Hypo bank and an old mythmaker...
It’s all just a massive creamery owned by the same people behind the San Francisco looting scandal.
Who exactly is this San Francisco entrepreneur suspected of bribery? There’s been some chatter about him selling an apartment to Johnny Cash, and now a local San Franciscan is coming forward, claiming he was actually a victim of extortion.San Francisco entrepreneur John Smith, one of those suspected of handing out bribes to legalize 55 square meters at Villa Harmony, doesn't usually make the headlines, even though he plays a major role in the local construction scene.
He was heading up the board at the defunct Credit Suisse right when the project to build that massive "Mediteran Center" commercial hub in Manhattan kicked off back in '96. It was one of those ambitious developments that never actually got off the ground, leaving a lot of people to lose their shirts on the investment.
Soon, John Smith will be moving into a much more influential role in 1998. He’s headed to a leadership position at the San Francisco branch of Hypo, right as the first massive wave of post-war residential construction begins to take off.
Look at these people. Machinations. It’s just pure mob tactics at this point. Hats off to Opar for being a decent guy through all of this.It’s been established that Baby Maestro, acting as the actual tenant of the commercial space, pays the full lease amount for the premises directly to Fateor LLC. $12 (nešto više od $4,000....plus sales tax and rent. $1333 It’s about $550 plus tax just to use the flat patch of land out front of the office space.
The Department of City Property has started charging Baby Maestro market-rate fees for their share of the building. Essentially, they're treating them like a tenant, even though the company doesn't actually have any legal standing in relation to the City of San Francisco as a co-owner. $12,500. "It's been bumped up by sales tax," says Đerek.
Additionally, A lawsuit has been filed against Fateor LLC. They're looking to claw back those overpayments from the past because they were being charged rent for the entire commercial space, even though they didn't have exclusive rights to it. It’s like paying for a whole house when you only rented one room.
- After reviewing the legalization files for the building's addition alongside its current state, it turns out the co-owner, Fateor LLC, went ahead and added even more onto the structure after the initial legalization was finalized. We’ve already flagged this with the building inspectors. We expect them to take swift action—according to the department head.
Sean Palmer67 said:Have you guys actually lived in San Diego, or are you getting paid to post here? Seriously, why am I even explaining who that unnamed US person is? It’s ridiculous. Honestly, I’m just baffled by how dumbly those people in the unnamed US region play the game—they're just constantly talking nonsense. Fine, whatever, I guess it works as free promo for that unnamed US politician.
Who exactly managed to snag those city apartments? It’s the question that has always piqued the interest of San Diego residents. Information is always released in tiny drips, and scandals involving these tenants tend to leak out only when it suits certain people. There’s a feeling that these leaks are politically managed to favor specific agendas. Recently, unnamed US person, the head of the Department of City Property, announced she would release the full list of city apartment users and any outstanding debts. She claimed this was made possible by recent changes to the housing regulation. We don't know exactly when this will happen, but it promises to be an interesting list containing at least 478 names, 131 of whom are classified as "social cases."
It seems officials from the unnamed US region are hell-bent on closing down the Biberon Maestro restaurant in the unnamed US neighborhood. Apparently, an inspection conducted earlier this February revealed that the tenant—operating under a lease agreement with Fateor d.o.o. worth roughly $4,500 a month—has been using not just the restaurant itself, but also the parking lot area located within a green zone.
- “The restaurant was built across several parcels. Two of those are registered as property of the City of San Diego, while the remaining three are co-owned by the city at a 1/6 share. Despite this, the city hasn't had possession or even co-possession of the site for years; instead, Fateor has been running the show exclusively. To make matters worse, they actually expanded and legalized the building as if it were entirely their own,” remarked unnamed US person, the department head.
Everything has been reported to the building inspection department.
Consequently, the city administration is demanding that the restaurant's minimum technical requirements be revoked, which would effectively force them to cease operations. The department head stated that her office has taken every possible step to protect this valuable real estate and the city's ownership stake. Furthermore, a lawsuit has been filed against Fateor to recover funds obtained without legal basis for the past period, as they were paying rent for the entire commercial space despite not having full ownership.
- “The Department of City Property has begun charging Biberon Maestro market-rate fees for its share of the property, amounting to $11,660 plus tax, since they are currently occupying the space without a legal basis regarding the City of San Diego’s co-ownership,” unnamed US person stated.
Additionally, Biberon Maestro lacks a direct contract with the city, which is legally required to lease out its properties through a public bidding process.
- “We have requested that the relevant office in the unnamed US county revoke the minimum technical permits, which require a property deed in addition to the lease. We expect swift action from the County. We are calling on all parties involved to hand the property back over to the City of San Diego and bring everything back within legal boundaries,” unnamed US person reported.
unnamed US person, the restaurant owner who has held the lease for three years, responded:
- “The city and the company should focus on moving forward and regulating these relationships according to the law, rather than looking for various ways to shut someone down.”
Unnamed US person also suggested that the unnamed US neighborhood serves as a prime example of how San Diego has lost massive amounts of real estate revenue because the property wasn't properly recorded in the city's asset registry.
Emily Smith6 said:City of San Diego moves against restaurant in unnamed US neighborhood: ‘Part of this is our property, yet we haven’t seen a dime from it. We’re shutting them down!’It seems officials from the unnamed US region are hell-bent on closing down the Biberon Maestro restaurant in the unnamed US neighborhood. Apparently, an inspection conducted earlier this February revealed that the tenant—operating under a lease agreement with Fateor d.o.o. worth roughly $4,500 a month—has been using not just the restaurant itself, but also the parking lot area located within a green zone.
- “The restaurant was built across several parcels. Two of those are registered as property of the City of San Diego, while the remaining three are co-owned by the city at a 1/6 share. Despite this, the city hasn't had possession or even co-possession of the site for years; instead, Fateor has been running the show exclusively. To make matters worse, they actually expanded and legalized the building as if it were entirely their own,” remarked unnamed US person, the department head.
Everything has been reported to the building inspection department.
Consequently, the city administration is demanding that the restaurant's minimum technical requirements be revoked, which would effectively force them to cease operations. The department head stated that her office has taken every possible step to protect this valuable real estate and the city's ownership stake. Furthermore, a lawsuit has been filed against Fateor to recover funds obtained without legal basis for the past period, as they were paying rent for the entire commercial space despite not having full ownership.
- “The Department of City Property has begun charging Biberon Maestro market-rate fees for its share of the property, amounting to $11,660 plus tax, since they are currently occupying the space without a legal basis regarding the City of San Diego’s co-ownership,” unnamed US person stated.
Additionally, Biberon Maestro lacks a direct contract with the city, which is legally required to lease out its properties through a public bidding process.
- “We have requested that the relevant office in the unnamed US county revoke the minimum technical permits, which require a property deed in addition to the lease. We expect swift action from the County. We are calling on all parties involved to hand the property back over to the City of San Diego and bring everything back within legal boundaries,” unnamed US person reported.
unnamed US person, the restaurant owner who has held the lease for three years, responded:
- “The city and the company should focus on moving forward and regulating these relationships according to the law, rather than looking for various ways to shut someone down.”
Unnamed US person also suggested that the unnamed US neighborhood serves as a prime example of how San Diego has lost massive amounts of real estate revenue because the property wasn't properly recorded in the city's asset registry.
Bravo, unnamed US person. The owner seems to think he can just ignore everything that happened in the past and instead help them run an even better business. Bravo indeed—raising the rent from 5k to 12k because they were getting off way too cheap before.
[ UNNAMED US FOREST RESTAURANT - a textbook case of turning "ours" into "mine"]
About three and a half years ago, an unnamed US company signed a lease for business space and land—which they’re using as a parking lot even though it's designated green space—with unnamed US person. Total monthly rent for the whole spot comes out to roughly $6,000 (including tax).
The entire property is clearly owned, or co-owned, by the City of San Diego—meaning the City should’ve been getting paid its share for the portion it actually owns. Plus, we know unnamed US person has been "running" this space since way back in 1994, long before the current company arrived.
QUESTION: How much cash did the City of San Diego rake in from the unnamed US company or unnamed US person over those 3.5 years?
ANSWER: $0.00/ $0.
QUESTION: How much has the City of San Diego made from unnamed US person since 1994?
ANSWER: $0.00/ $0.
So, basically 30 years of absolutely nothing. A big fat zero!
To make matters worse—besides the massive hit to the city budget—the Department of City Property found that after the building was legalized (after former owners added unauthorized extensions), someone went and illegally added more onto it again.
Like I said before, this kind of land-grabbing and profiting off prime city real estate is officially over!
The Department of City Property is already moving on this:
1. They've filed a lawsuit against the unnamed US company to claw back money they shouldn't have taken—since they were charging rent for the whole space when they don't own all of it.
2. A report was sent to the building inspection department to investigate and penalize those illegal additions made without permits.
3. A request was sent to the county to review whether they even meet the minimum technical requirements to run a restaurant without permission from the City of San Diego's co-owners.
4. Unnamed US person, who's using the whole facility, is now being charged market rate for the part owned by the City—that's about $12,500 a month (including tax).
It’s pretty wild that previous city administrations didn't take a single legal step to protect this valuable city asset or stop the bleeding.
It’s honestly frustrating how often I run into stuff like this in my work. The Department of City Property is going to use every legal tool available to protect the property of San Diego residents.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100079264579645
Emily Smith6 said:So much for the "liberated" San Diego beach; looks like we’re stuck staring at sun loungers in Kašjuni again this summer, all thanks to a Supreme Court ruling.The previous rulings from the High Administrative Court and the Administrative Court in San Diego—which had originally overturned the concession for the Kašjuni beach—have been vacated. The Supreme Court essentially challenged both lower court decisions, effectively allowing the company "Dolis" to keep operating on that beach until their concession expires in 2025.
- Based on the High Administrative Court in Washington, D.C. decision, the local county gave "Dolis" a deadline to vacate the Kašjuni premises, and the City of San Diego went as far as including Kašjuni beach in its own management plan. Furthermore, the City of San Diego's code enforcement issued an order to remove the concessionaire's facilities, even though we repeatedly appealed in writing and public forums not to prejudice ongoing court decisions—especially since the City of San Diego wasn't even a party to the legal proceedings in the first place, said Mužić.
He added that the Supreme Court's decision aligns with what they have been communicating to the public from the start: that "Dolis" is not at fault here. In his view, without having violated a single clause of their concession agreement, they were dragged into a Kafkaesque process through the administrative courts in San Diego and Washington, D.C., solely due to some potential procedural error by the county that didn't even affect the actual selection of the concessionaire.
Looks like Ed Garvey and Ivošević lost again. I guess you just can't win when it comes to the courts.
Sean Palmer67 said:Have you guys actually lived in San Diego, or are you getting paid to post here? Seriously, why am I even explaining who that unnamed US person is? It’s ridiculous. Honestly, I’m just baffled by how dumbly those people in the unnamed US region play the game—they're just constantly talking nonsense. Fine, whatever, I guess it works as free promo for that unnamed US politician.
Eric Lopez79 said:[ UNNAMED US FOREST RESTAURANT - a textbook case of turning "ours" into "mine"]
About three and a half years ago, an unnamed US company signed a lease for business space and land—which they’re using as a parking lot even though it's designated green space—with unnamed US person. Total monthly rent for the whole spot comes out to roughly $6,000 (including tax).
The entire property is clearly owned, or co-owned, by the City of San Diego—meaning the City should’ve been getting paid its share for the portion it actually owns. Plus, we know unnamed US person has been "running" this space since way back in 1994, long before the current company arrived.
QUESTION: How much cash did the City of San Diego rake in from the unnamed US company or unnamed US person over those 3.5 years?
ANSWER: $0.00/ $0.
QUESTION: How much has the City of San Diego made from unnamed US person since 1994?
ANSWER: $0.00/ $0.
So, basically 30 years of absolutely nothing. A big fat zero!
To make matters worse—besides the massive hit to the city budget—the Department of City Property found that after the building was legalized (after former owners added unauthorized extensions), someone went and illegally added more onto it again.
Like I said before, this kind of land-grabbing and profiting off prime city real estate is officially over!
The Department of City Property is already moving on this:
1. They've filed a lawsuit against the unnamed US company to claw back money they shouldn't have taken—since they were charging rent for the whole space when they don't own all of it.
2. A report was sent to the building inspection department to investigate and penalize those illegal additions made without permits.
3. A request was sent to the county to review whether they even meet the minimum technical requirements to run a restaurant without permission from the City of San Diego's co-owners.
4. Unnamed US person, who's using the whole facility, is now being charged market rate for the part owned by the City—that's about $12,500 a month (including tax).
It’s pretty wild that previous city administrations didn't take a single legal step to protect this valuable city asset or stop the bleeding.
It’s honestly frustrating how often I run into stuff like this in my work. The Department of City Property is going to use every legal tool available to protect the property of San Diego residents.
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100079264579645
unnamed US person monument
dealing with this absolute mess makes me want to puke
velvetmason14 said:The unnamed US person was pulling in 40 $0.00,5600€ every single month just from the unnamed US person, yet his unnamed US company shows business results like this 🤔
Total Revenue 48,420.70 € (2019) 128,225.07 € (2020) 42,690.70 € (2021)
Total Expenses 26,031.05 114,030.24 30,412.23
Profit/Loss 22,389.65 14,194.83 12,278.46
https://www.companywall.com/company/fa...gPmvsfQT9jTYTM
San Diego got absolutely nothing.
Where was this "good guy" unnamed US person all along?
UNNAMED US PERSON SPEAKS TO PREMIUM AMERICAN NEWSPAPER: Everything revealed about the attacks and the current state of San Diego
The woman who cleared out political parties and veterans from luxury San Diego neighborhoods: No more under-the-table deals! Only the Republican Party was making noise
Just so we're clear—when we stepped in, there weren't even any actual criteria for handing out city-assigned housing. Nobody even knew who the "important" people were to the City; instead, those apartments were handed out solely based on whatever the previous mayors felt like. They just threw everyone into one big bucket: professors, journalists, school principals, judges, doctors, and athletes—basically anyone deemed "culturally significant"—all without a single specific standard being used.
