Eric Adams - Mayor of San Francisco

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?

vividraven79 said:If someone said that about the Associated Press, they’d already be in custody

vividraven79 said:He’s claiming he wants to buy out his apartment and that the federal government is leaning on San Francisco to sell it to him, while the city just drags its feet.

First off... if you can't afford rent, how on earth are you supposed to afford a buyout?
Second, why on earth would the city sell off its own property to just anyone? If he’s entitled to discounted rent under the GI Bill, he should just pay the difference between that subsidized rate and the actual market value.
Or, let the federal government provide him with a state-owned unit for use.
Or maybe the Department of Defense could let him use one of their properties.

Why would the city be handing over public assets at a discount to individuals?
And honestly, I'm fine with my profile saying what it says about me. Yours says just as much about you. It's just a shame it's all so pathetic. Ugh.

The Jewish cemetery in San Francisco, located on the eastern slope of Central Park.
It’s the oldest Jewish cemetery in the United States and arguably one of the oldest preserved sites globally.
It serves as the final resting place for many distinguished San Francisco residents, including Vid Morpurgo, the publisher and owner of the city's oldest bookstore.
Unfortunately, the property belongs to the Republic of America.
Lost in the bureaucratic wilderness of federal property—where the government seems to have no idea what it actually owns, let alone how to manage or care for it—this cemetery (which is otherwise a protected cultural landmark) sits in a state of neglect.
The City of San Francisco, through its Department of Public Property, has formally requested that the government transfer ownership, or at least management rights, so the city can maintain and preserve this cultural heritage. It would be a point of pride for the City, all its citizens, the Jewish community, and the descendants of those laid to rest there.
We are hoping for a swift response from the government and its various agencies, as the City intends to begin maintenance work as soon as possible.
Regrettably, this isn't an isolated case where we see sluggish government action or a total lack thereof regarding the ownership and upkeep of cemeteries. We are facing a similar situation with the cemetery in the neighborhood of Žrnovnica, where we've been requesting ownership for months just so they can expand the grounds.
It feels somewhat absurd that the institutions tasked with managing federal property (assuming they actually manage it) fail to recognize this issue and don't use existing laws to hand such assets over to local self-government units.

The boutique hotel in the Bačvica neighborhood, owned by Blaženka Bonomi, might be forced to close its doors if the Province revokes its minimum technical requirements—a move requested by the San Francisco city administration. As it stands, Bonomi owes the City nearly $100,000 for the hostel alone. On top of that, she’s been ordered to vacate the premises, and legal proceedings for eviction are already underway. Regional officials confirmed to us that an inspection is currently being conducted following the City's request. While the property was being used without any legal basis, the Province had been charging the owner a monthly fee of $10,596 plus tax.

It isn't just the hostel, though. Maja Đerek, the head of the Department of Public Property, pointed out that Bonomi also owes money for commercial space on Homeland War Street. That specific location was never actually put to use and has since been returned to the Province, but it left behind a debt of $146,843. So, when you factor in the Bačvica boutique hotel, Bonomi owes the City roughly $250,000.

"The tenant simply didn't pay rent or other costs; the use of the space went unchecked for years, and no collection actions were ever initiated," Đerek noted.

Despite this, she added that the tenant was actually granted an expansion of business activities at the Bačvica site to include lodging services, even though that type of business falls into a much higher rental price bracket.

She also mentioned that the contract wasn't terminated, even though it explicitly stated it would be after two unpaid months. Furthermore, the department head expressed shock that the tenant was allowed to offset investment costs against overdue rent in the amount of $257, allegedly under the orders of a former department head.

She emphasized that such compensation goes directly against both the lease agreement and the original bidding terms, which clearly state that the tenant bears all investment costs.

"In the public tender application for the lease, Bonomi waived the right to claim reimbursement for property investments, which was a mandatory condition of the bid," she explained.

"Even with the compensation, debts remained, so the security deposits were activated—but even those weren't enough to cover the full amount. In plain English, Bonomi hasn't voluntarily paid a single cent of rent for these commercial spaces. The lease expired as if nothing had ever happened," she said, visibly frustrated.

"This is, unfortunately, just one example showing how city property was managed irrationally and inequitably, causing massive damage to the City. It's a prime example of how certain individuals used public assets for free and without legal standing, seemingly thinking they could bypass the rules through connections. This puts all the other tenants who regularly meet their obligations to the City at a disadvantage," Đerek concluded, adding that such practices have come to an end.

Maja Đerek said:they clearly think they can get away with anything through connections

That’s right—we’ve decided to implement both financial and functional decentralization regarding the management of state-owned property. Functional decentralization essentially means we are handing over decision-making power for state assets to the counties and major cities. Of course, we have established upper limits that align with the Local Self-Government Act. I suppose it would be somewhat illogical if county executives and mayors held more authority over state property than they do over their own local assets. Under this plan, local officials will handle the disposal of property valued up to $140,000; anything between that and $1.1 million will fall under the jurisdiction of the county assembly or city council; and anything exceeding that amount remains the responsibility of the Secretary or the Government.

We are also moving toward financial decentralization, where counties and cities will retain a portion of the revenue generated from managing those assets. The federal government will take 60%, while the city or county will receive 20% each. We expect this approach to improve liquidity, lead to more efficient management of state-owned real estate, and hopefully speed up the resolution of pending cases.

📍 81 EL PASO STREET | #ThematicSession
📍 Mayor John Hickenlooper and department head Maja Đerek are back at it again! ❗️
📍 This time, the focus is on the residents of the former single men's hostel. One of the main topics for this Friday's thematic session will be the proposed increase in compensation, which is being suggested without the City of San Francisco actually investing in the current state of the property.
📍 We are pushing for long-term solutions that guarantee the right of first refusal or life-long residency!

Emily Smith6 said:Branko Bačić

That’s right—we’ve decided to implement both financial and functional decentralization regarding the management of state-owned property. Functional decentralization essentially means we are handing over decision-making power for state assets to the counties and major cities. Of course, we have established upper limits that align with the Local Self-Government Act. I suppose it would be somewhat illogical if county executives and mayors held more authority over state property than they do over their own local assets. Under this plan, local officials will handle the disposal of property valued up to $140,000; anything between that and $1.1 million will fall under the jurisdiction of the county assembly or city council; and anything exceeding that amount remains the responsibility of the Secretary or the Government.

We are also moving toward financial decentralization, where counties and cities will retain a portion of the revenue generated from managing those assets. The federal government will take 60%, while the city or county will receive 20% each. We expect this approach to improve liquidity, lead to more efficient management of state-owned real estate, and hopefully speed up the resolution of pending cases.

So, there you have it. They’ve decided to hand the properties over to the cities, but the feds are still going to be the ones raking in the real profit.

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.

Ever since I stepped into my role as the head of the Department of Public Property, I’ve been busy drafting formal correspondence to the Ministry to ensure we finally resolve all these types of cases. We actually took the initiative to organize a meeting back in February—the only one we've managed to get on the books so far—but it was abruptly canceled. They told us they would follow up with a new date, but since then? Absolute radio silence from the Ministry. Not a single letter, not even a postcard.
As far as we can tell, Robert Franjić is currently occupying a 350-square-foot apartment owned by the city—and he’s doing so without any legal right to be there. According to the official municipal records, he was first flagged as an unauthorized occupant back on January 1, 1998. We honestly don't have any information regarding how he originally gained access to the property, but it certainly wasn't through any legitimate or lawful process.
Unfortunately, the City of San Francisco doesn't actually have the legal authority to legalize these statuses or sign off on any lease agreements without first running a formal public bidding process. Under our current laws, the only entity that can bypass a public tender to award an apartment directly to a veteran is the Ministry of Veterans Affairs—and even then, they have to strictly follow Article 83, Section 2 of the Veterans Act. That specific part of the law outlines how housing assistance is handled, which includes the right to publicly lease apartments owned by the U.S. government for a ten-year term, with the option to extend once that period wraps up.
Here’s the thing—even though the government's own public records show they have over 600 vacant apartments sitting idle, the Ministry of Veterans Affairs is refusing to allocate them to our veterans. It’s incredibly frustrating because there is absolutely zero transparency here—there isn't even a publicly available waiting list, nor is there any clear record of which units have been assigned or an official inventory of the empty properties owned by the Republic of America. To make matters worse, the state has actually set up a system where State Real Estate LLC leases these government-owned units at full market rates based on a "highest bidder" principle. It just doesn't seem right.
So, here’s the deal—it seems like the Ministry of Veterans Affairs is refusing to actually follow the very law they proposed themselves. Even though there are clear opportunities available to handle the housing situation, they won't take the lead. Instead, they just keep passing the buck back to the City.
On top of all that, the City of San Francisco put out a call for applications last year to lease apartments to residents facing social hardship. After looking through the submitted requests, it turns out that Robert Franjić didn't actually submit an application for any of them.
As we have pointed out before—and this is a point we stand by—there are currently 70 individuals and families with verified social needs just waiting for housing. The reality is that the City of San Francisco simply doesn't have the capacity to accommodate them all right now because there isn't enough available inventory. This issue is being compounded by a specific legal headache—the fact that the Republic of America is currently being registered as the owner of various properties that were previously under the management of the City due to recent legislative changes. It’s a complicated situation, to say the least. To make matters even more pressing, the list of applicants also includes veterans who applied through the public tender process.
Furthermore, even if Mr. Robert Franjić had actually applied for the position, he wouldn't qualify for an apartment allocation—period. He has been registered as a resident in Maui since 1984, and the requirement clearly stated residency in San Francisco. On top of that, he owes a staggering $7,226.19 based on his usage of the unit—that includes rent, utility fees, and NUV. It’s worth noting here that he was only responsible for a $30 monthly fee for unauthorized use of the apartment until 2020, which jumped to $64.70 per month after that. This essentially means he hasn't been paying his usage fees for quite some time now.
Ultimately, the City of San Francisco is obligated to initiate the eviction and debt collection process—though, strictly speaking, the city doesn't handle the actual removal; that falls to the courts once a final, enforceable judgment is issued.
As we have done in all similar instances, we reached out to Robert Franjić simply to request a peaceful handover of the property. We aren't looking to force an eviction. Once the legal proceedings officially begin, everything else depends entirely on the court system and how long their timeline takes.
Regarding any possibility of him buying the apartment, the City of San Francisco has no legal authority to sell it to Mr. Franjić—he has no legal right to be living there and hasn't paid his usage fees for years.
We are waiting for the Ministry to finally step up and allocate vacant apartments owned by the Republic of America to all people facing these kinds of situations in San Francisco, especially since the resources are available.

Unofficially, we’re hearing that almost everything the media has been digging into is on their radar—everything from the hiring of outsourcing firms and various contracts to the waste disposal issues at Karepovac, and even those alleged bin deliveries to another city.

Puljkov took over as director of one of the most critical city agencies just last year. After the initial bidding process was scrapped, a new one was launched with slightly tweaked requirements, which eventually led to Karoglan being selected. The director's decisions have made headlines more than a few times, and now, it seems the FBI has decided to take an interest. They've seized a massive amount of documentation to review, and I suppose the investigation is still ongoing.

Dana Martin95 said:I guess the current administration has really messed things up for the local neighborhoods. You just can't get a hold of anyone anymore, and there's zero communication... it feels like a complete blackout whenever you need customer service. It’s honestly pretty bad, I think they really dropped the ball on this one.