Started by Dana Martin95 · · 👁 61 views · 1.4K replies
…
| The City of San Francisco will be showing up at the Green Party conference. They're hosting CES on June 1st and 2nd over at Times Square, where they’ll be demoing their Smart City app. - We've been working on this Smart City app lately. It's mostly for our residents, so they can have a more direct line to the city administration and pay their bills without any extra fees. Through the app, people should be able to get important real-time alerts, like if there's construction going on down the street. We're also going to show off some digital tools that our local businesses and agencies have built themselves, - said an unnamed counterpart, who heads up development for the City of San Francisco. She mentioned that the city administration realized they actually have a ton of digital tools available, but most people just don't know how to use them yet. - This is our way of showing everyone how much easier digital communication can make life—both for regular people and for our local government staff. I really hope citizens take a stroll through Times Square to check out what the City has put together for them, she added. |
| According to the audit report posted on the MH website for 2020, Matica's annual revenue was roughly $2.7 million, with over $1.8 million coming directly from the federal budget. This has been the pattern for years, long before you were elected president. What’s your take on Matica being funded this way? Are you planning to find ways for them to rely more on diverse funding sources? |
| "I called the number provided in the letter for days, but nobody picked up. We finally tracked down a cell number, and I tried calling him just now, but there's still no answer. Getting a hold of him is tough," says Jerry Brown, noting that Matica representatives have met with officials and the department head several times, and everything has been handled properly. |
| The latest news coming out of the Department of Public Works suggests that the local Republican Party owes the City of San Francisco around $32,000. Apparently, this stems from unpaid commercial lease agreements because they allegedly failed to vacate their premises on schedule. Of course, the Republican Party is offering a completely different version of events. I guess we’ll have to wait and see which side of this dispute actually holds water. Back in mid-March, the City of San Francisco updated its official website to announce some significant changes regarding commercial lease agreements. It looks like they’re finally shifting toward actual market rates. For years, various political parties have been getting by on dirt-cheap leases, essentially paying pennies compared to what anyone else would. To give you an idea of how skewed this has been, the local Republican Party branch had been enjoying a heavily discounted monthly rent for twenty-five years. $6.75 per square foot Assuming there's no sales tax involved. Based on the handover report, it seems the local Republican Party didn't actually vacate the premises at 3 Sinj Street until May 19th—even though they had already started paying the updated market rate back in April. For those following along, we're talking about a 1,740-square-foot space, for which... With the new price list, the cost per square foot has climbed to a staggering $65. I guess we’re really feeling the squeeze now.. In the meantime, the party has moved into a different location, and now they’re claiming that the City of San Francisco hasn't paid their rent. Apparently, the unpaid balance has since ballooned to somewhere around $35,000. According to the Department of Public Works, the Republican Party entered into their very first commercial lease agreement with the City of San Francisco back in 1992. Apparently, they were paying an incredibly preferential monthly rent of... $6.75 Per square foot, excluding tax, that works out to be about 22 times lower than what the current market rate for a commercial lease agreement actually sits at. According to the Department of Public Works, those commercial lease agreements actually expired back on February 21st. Apparently, the tenants have already been notified that their leases won't be renewed—which, I suppose, applies to all the other political parties that were occupying those prime downtown San Francisco spots under such exclusive terms. They claim they reached out to the Republican Party multiple times, asking them to return those commercial lease agreements to the City of San Francisco, but apparently, they were met with nothing but silence. It wasn't until mid-May that they finally requested the official handover, which was completed just a few days later. According to them, most of the other political parties had already handed their spaces back over to the city in the meantime. They were given nearly 40 days to vacate the premises once the contract expired, during which time they were still being charged the preferential rate established by their previous agreements. However, starting April 1, 2023, their status shifted; they are now classified as unauthorized users, meaning they are subject to market-rate rental fees for that location, which currently sit at $65 per square foot. As of May 19, the total debt incurred from April 1 onward amounts to roughly $35,000. Apparently, they’ve been refusing to accept the invoices, so we had to resort to sending them via email, according to a representative from the Department of Public Works. The local Republican Party branch here in San Francisco is claiming they vacated their offices back on May 4th, though I find that a bit hard to swallow given they didn't even send over the official notice to vacate until eleven days later. They’re also suggesting they reached out to the City to request an extension on their commercial lease agreement, but apparently, they've been left hanging without any response from the administration to this day. I guess we'll just have to take their word for it. On January 11th—just over a month before the existing contract was set to expire—we reached out to the City requesting an extension. We never actually received a response to that request. Instead, on February 24th, we were met with a demand from the City asking us to peacefully vacate the premises. In response to those claims, we actually reached out to the City to request formal proof of ownership regarding the premises in question, but I guess we still haven't received anything. As for the relocation process, things were set in motion quite a while ago; the move to the new offices was finalized at the beginning of this month, and since then, both the City Council and the local Republican Party committee have been operating out of their new locations. When asked whether they paid the updated rent upon vacating the premises—and specifically how much that amount totaled—the local Republican Party branch offered a rather non-committal response. They essentially stated that the Republican Party in San Francisco settles its debts with everyone, including the City of San Francisco, in a timely manner, and that this policy will continue moving forward. I guess that’s one way to avoid actually answering the question. "I’m actually quite pleased that the local Republican Party leaders in San Francisco ultimately decided to act reasonably and stay within the bounds of the law. We’re hopeful that other unauthorized users will follow the Republican Party's lead and hand control of these municipal properties back over to the City. We have applied the same standard to every political party that was using city-owned business spaces at those preferential rates; they all had to vacate. The City of San Francisco intends to reallocate these vacant commercial spaces through a public bidding process, prioritizing non-profits focused on social, humanitarian, and educational work, while a smaller portion will be made available via commercial lease agreements through public tender. Moving forward, the city won't be handing out municipal office space to political parties," an unnamed counterpart told us. |
Emily Smith6 said:It looks like we’re seeing yet another round of political bickering over in San Francisco. The City is now claiming that the Republican Party owes tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid rent for their office space. I guess the drama just never ends with local politics.
unnamed counterpart:
The latest news coming out of the Department of Public Works suggests that the local Republican Party owes the City of San Francisco around $32,000. Apparently, this stems from unpaid commercial lease agreements because they allegedly failed to vacate their premises on schedule. Of course, the Republican Party is offering a completely different version of events. I guess we’ll have to wait and see which side of this dispute actually holds water.
Back in mid-March, the City of San Francisco updated its official website to announce some significant changes regarding commercial lease agreements. It looks like they’re finally shifting toward actual market rates. For years, various political parties have been getting by on dirt-cheap leases, essentially paying pennies compared to what anyone else would. To give you an idea of how skewed this has been, the local Republican Party branch had been enjoying a heavily discounted monthly rent for twenty-five years. $6.75 per square foot Assuming there's no sales tax involved.
Based on the handover report, it seems the local Republican Party didn't actually vacate the premises at 3 Sinj Street until May 19th—even though they had already started paying the updated market rate back in April. For those following along, we're talking about a 1,740-square-foot space, for which... With the new price list, the cost per square foot has climbed to a staggering $65. I guess we’re really feeling the squeeze now..
In the meantime, the party has moved into a different location, and now they’re claiming that the City of San Francisco hasn't paid their rent. Apparently, the unpaid balance has since ballooned to somewhere around $35,000.
According to the Department of Public Works, the Republican Party entered into their very first commercial lease agreement with the City of San Francisco back in 1992. Apparently, they were paying an incredibly preferential monthly rent of... $6.75 Per square foot, excluding tax, that works out to be about 22 times lower than what the current market rate for a commercial lease agreement actually sits at.
According to the Department of Public Works, those commercial lease agreements actually expired back on February 21st. Apparently, the tenants have already been notified that their leases won't be renewed—which, I suppose, applies to all the other political parties that were occupying those prime downtown San Francisco spots under such exclusive terms.
They claim they reached out to the Republican Party multiple times, asking them to return those commercial lease agreements to the City of San Francisco, but apparently, they were met with nothing but silence. It wasn't until mid-May that they finally requested the official handover, which was completed just a few days later. According to them, most of the other political parties had already handed their spaces back over to the city in the meantime.
They were given nearly 40 days to vacate the premises once the contract expired, during which time they were still being charged the preferential rate established by their previous agreements. However, starting April 1, 2023, their status shifted; they are now classified as unauthorized users, meaning they are subject to market-rate rental fees for that location, which currently sit at $65 per square foot. As of May 19, the total debt incurred from April 1 onward amounts to roughly $35,000. Apparently, they’ve been refusing to accept the invoices, so we had to resort to sending them via email, according to a representative from the Department of Public Works.
The local Republican Party branch here in San Francisco is claiming they vacated their offices back on May 4th, though I find that a bit hard to swallow given they didn't even send over the official notice to vacate until eleven days later. They’re also suggesting they reached out to the City to request an extension on their commercial lease agreement, but apparently, they've been left hanging without any response from the administration to this day. I guess we'll just have to take their word for it.
On January 11th—just over a month before the existing contract was set to expire—we reached out to the City requesting an extension. We never actually received a response to that request. Instead, on February 24th, we were met with a demand from the City asking us to peacefully vacate the premises.
In response to those claims, we actually reached out to the City to request formal proof of ownership regarding the premises in question, but I guess we still haven't received anything. As for the relocation process, things were set in motion quite a while ago; the move to the new offices was finalized at the beginning of this month, and since then, both the City Council and the local Republican Party committee have been operating out of their new locations.
When asked whether they paid the updated rent upon vacating the premises—and specifically how much that amount totaled—the local Republican Party branch offered a rather non-committal response. They essentially stated that the Republican Party in San Francisco settles its debts with everyone, including the City of San Francisco, in a timely manner, and that this policy will continue moving forward. I guess that’s one way to avoid actually answering the question.
"I’m actually quite pleased that the local Republican Party leaders in San Francisco ultimately decided to act reasonably and stay within the bounds of the law. We’re hopeful that other unauthorized users will follow the Republican Party's lead and hand control of these municipal properties back over to the City.
We have applied the same standard to every political party that was using city-owned business spaces at those preferential rates; they all had to vacate. The City of San Francisco intends to reallocate these vacant commercial spaces through a public bidding process, prioritizing non-profits focused on social, humanitarian, and educational work, while a smaller portion will be made available via commercial lease agreements through public tender. Moving forward, the city won't be handing out municipal office space to political parties," an unnamed counterpart told us.
Robin Jones2 said:John McCain used to be an ABC reporter. He took lighter wounds to his hand, thigh, and finger, and somehow that made him an Exelon hero?
| The former San Diego deputy mayor, John Sundov, was handed a 14-month prison sentence by the District Court on Tuesday for fraud. He's accused of draining $45,000 from the federal treasury. |
ruggedowl13 said:
says:
Think about how much the U.S. Coast Guard—or even local volunteer rescue squads—has saved hikers lost in the woods wearing flip-flops, or all those people wandering off trails, or even during flood rescues and stuff like that. That’s why the whole situation with the national agency is just stupid. They basically earned it.
The search and rescue teams are volunteers.
I guess when you have enough other problems to deal with in life, war somehow ends up being a secondary concern...
Charles Fox10 said:The number of times Steve—that Census Bureau employee—has saved tourists wandering through the hills in hiking boots, or helped our own people lost on mountain trails, or stepped up during flood relief... using that as an excuse for Exelon is just foolish. He earned it.
The Census Bureau is made up of volunteers.
velvetmason14 said:The inner circle surrounding Sanders and Bandić’s favorite sculptor, the unnamed counterpart, are absolutely stunned by what Matica had to pay—just a few measly dollars per 100 square feet for space on Marmont Square 🤣 What a bunch of cheapskates from Matica...
Over it's noted that Matica pulls in about $1.8 million annually just from federal funding...
unnamed counterpart:Jerry Brown is trying to get the unnamed counterpart on the phone... 🤦 But where are the kingmakers, the nurse, and that other genius from Puljkov's PR team? Total amateurs. It’s like they don't care that they're pushing against the unnamed counterpart just because he's actually doing his job right. 🤔
According to the audit report posted on the MH website for 2020, Matica's annual revenue was roughly $2.7 million, with over $1.8 million coming directly from the federal budget. This has been the pattern for years, long before you were elected president. What’s your take on Matica being funded this way? Are you planning to find ways for them to rely more on diverse funding sources?
unnamed counterpart: Matica America shouldn't be treated like a commodity.
unnamed counterpart:
"I called the number provided in the letter for days, but nobody picked up. We finally tracked down a cell number, and I tried calling him just now, but there's still no answer. Getting a hold of him is tough," says Jerry Brown, noting that Matica representatives have met with officials and the department head several times, and everything has been handled properly.
velvetmason14 said:The inner circle surrounding Sanders and Bandić’s favorite sculptor, the unnamed counterpart, are absolutely stunned by what Matica had to pay—just a few measly dollars per 100 square feet for space on Marmont Square 🤣 What a bunch of cheapskates from Matica...
Over it's noted that Matica pulls in about $1.8 million annually just from federal funding...
unnamed counterpart:Jerry Brown is trying to get the unnamed counterpart on the phone... 🤦 But where are the kingmakers, the nurse, and that other genius from Puljkov's PR team? Total amateurs. It’s like they don't care that they're pushing against the unnamed counterpart just because he's actually doing his job right. 🤔
According to the audit report posted on the MH website for 2020, Matica's annual revenue was roughly $2.7 million, with over $1.8 million coming directly from the federal budget. This has been the pattern for years, long before you were elected president. What’s your take on Matica being funded this way? Are you planning to find ways for them to rely more on diverse funding sources?
unnamed counterpart: Matica America shouldn't be treated like a commodity.
unnamed counterpart:
"I called the number provided in the letter for days, but nobody picked up. We finally tracked down a cell number, and I tried calling him just now, but there's still no answer. Getting a hold of him is tough," says Jerry Brown, noting that Matica representatives have met with officials and the department head several times, and everything has been handled properly.
Tomislav Sut: I welcome the US Federal Government's tax reform. I'm calling on Mayor John Koopman to follow the Cabinet's lead and fulfill his promise to lighten the load for San Francisco residents.
The tools to make this happen are in Mayor John Koopman's hands now – just invest in infrastructure, build more preschools, and give San Francisco taxpayers some breathing room. The city budget could definitely handle it if there was enough will and expertise – I guess the interests of San Francisco citizens should always come first.
https://www.gOP-split.com/tomislav-s...enju-splicana/
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.”
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.
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?
