Eric Adams - Mayor of San Francisco

It’s honestly wild to me that a massive stretch of greenery like Central Park doesn't even have a dedicated forester after all this time...

I think I finally see why Ed decided to join the Republican Party back in 2012... he realized he had to step up and defend our values when things got tough.

The math just isn't adding up regarding those last elections. The Republican Party supposedly has about 10,000 votes, but if you count them out—maybe 15 from Bill’s household and at least 20 from that group over by the Boardwalk—where on earth did the rest of those unofficial voters come from?

velvetmason14 said:So, Milena is living in an illegal house, yet Ivica is out there accusing his own aunt of being an unlicensed builder... That’s one lovely family dynamic right there. 🤣 When the Republican Party joins forces with those looking to Sell everything out, you get exactly what you'd expect...

Here’s the full story of how Ivica made his way in life. A builder who actually lives in a house built without a permit. ☕

A high-ranking official from the local Republican Party is living in an illegal house built without any permits, located on land where residential construction isn't even allowed in the first place.

Ivica Budimir serves as the Vice Chairman for the local Republican Party branch and heads the County Supervisory Board of the utility company. It turns out he’s also living in a house built without any legal permits, situated on land where residential construction is strictly prohibited. We've had this confirmed by the City of San Diego administration, the State Inspectorate, and Budimir himself.

What’s the situation?

There’s a house owned by an GOP supporter that was built back in the late nineties, located right next to the hospital near the Firulam area in San Diego. According to the Department of Urban Planning, this is designated as Zone D—a zone strictly reserved for public and social use. Think of places like student dorms, hospitals, schools, tech parks, or churches. Residential or commercial buildings are completely off-limits in this specific zone. Despite those rules, Mr. Budimir is living comfortably in a large, unauthorized family home that spans two floors plus an attic. It makes you wonder: how was a house like that even permitted to be built, and more importantly, why hasn't it been addressed yet?

We reached out to the San Diego City Administration to ask if the relevant authorities have actually conducted any field inspections to verify whether this house is even legal. Their response? They’ve received an application for legalization, but nothing has been finalized yet. However, they were pretty firm on one point: the property has been classified as a residential building, but according to the Department of Urban Planning regulations, residential construction isn't permitted in that specific area. Period. No exceptions.

If building houses in that zone isn't allowed, then how did this house get built in the first place? And more importantly, why hasn't any action been taken against its construction?

The City Administration says our first step should be directing the inquiry toward whoever handled the actual construction. After that, we need to take it up with the agencies responsible for oversight and building inspections.

We’ll be passing along the following questions and answers exactly as they are.

We reached out to ask a few straightforward questions: Is there any official document that actually authorized this construction? In other words, does this building hold a valid building permit? If a permit was ever issued, what was the justification given, especially considering the specific zoning regulations for this area? Ultimately, does any existing regulation even allow for construction at this location?

"It doesn't exist. It isn't there. It’s just not happening," Teo Vojković, the City's Head of Urban Planning and Construction, told us with a shrug.

The State Inspectorate informed us that they originally determined the developer had illegally constructed a residential building without any permits. They actually issued a final Order to Remove the structure along with a legally binding Conclusion on permit execution. However, after a follow-up inspection and a hearing with the developer, it turns out Budimir filed an application back in 2012 to request a resolution based on the "as-built" status of the illegal building—a request that still hasn't been finalized. Because of this pending paperwork, they’ve now issued a new ruling that halts the demolition process until this new legal proceeding reaches a final conclusion.

To put it simply, this house was built illegally between 1997 and 2001 without any permits whatsoever. Years later, in 2012, an application for legalization was submitted. However, after an inspection, the State Inspectorate determined the structure is unauthorized and is calling for its demolition. A new site inspection was carried out, and the whole process is still dragging on. We are now looking at eleven years since the legalization request was filed, and over twenty years since the illegal construction was actually completed.

In the end, we reached out to Mr. Budimir.

- I didn't build it myself. My father did. There are three of us brothers, and back in 2006, we were each assigned an apartment. My father built it without the standard permits. That was just how things worked back then; everyone was doing it. If I had built this in a different neighborhood, it probably would have been legalized by now. It used to be common practice to build without permits because nobody knew how the legalization process would eventually turn out—it's a classic Republican Party talking point.

Even so, he insists this isn't actually the core issue.

- We requested changes to the Department of Urban Planning's maps, but they haven't been granted. We’re stuck following a plan established during the previous mayor's administration, and according to Teo Vojković’s opinion, this area really needs to be legalized—Budimir told us. He even shared Vojković's formal opinion with us.

As a reminder, this is the same official who gave us this blunt response when asked about the legality of the house where Budimir lives: "It doesn't exist. There isn't one. No. It's not allowed."

He isn't the only one.
Budimir points out that his home isn't some unique outlier.

- There are 14 similar properties right here. Both the state and the county gave their approval back when the previous administration was following the standard procedure for updating the Department of Urban Planning's maps, but it just didn't pass the City Council at the time. On top of that, the City connected us to water, sewage, streetlights, and phone lines... basically the whole street is set up this way. There are also about 120 other buildings in social zones near the hospital, around the campus, and near Marjan. We are working on pushing for those zoning changes; we'll see if anything actually moves forward—Budimir said.

He sent us a message, which we will quote directly.

- If you've done your homework, you'll see the documents showing that I'm not some rogue builder, but rather someone living with my family in a home that simply hasn't been legalized yet—explained the Vice President of the local Republican Party branch.

Did any of the local news outlets or sites even pick this up?

I’m dying to see what "Occupied California" is going to report once election season hits.
Back during the last elections, they actually bothered to write something against the organizers—probably because they were hoping
they'd get some kickbacks from this crowd too.

The City Council just pushed through that resolution regarding the proposed "singles hotel," and apparently, the residents were so thrilled about it that they were practically hugging the officials. It’s quite the scene.

The City Council just reached a unanimous decision regarding the property over on 81st Street. For those tenants who qualify under the protected rent provisions, their lease rates will be set to match current standards. We’re also looking at reviewing the specific requirements for contract addendums to ensure we can offer indefinite terms, provided there are clearly defined termination clauses in place. On top of that, the Department of Public Works has been tasked with coordinating with Exelon to handle the utility reclassification, effectively switching the electricity rates from industrial back to residential. The goal is to have all the groundwork completed by the end of June, which should hopefully allow tenants to start signing their new contract addendums starting July 1st.

A group of rather enthusiastic residents were seen practically hugging the lead official after he fought tooth and nail to get this specific issue onto the City Council agenda.

It seems someone is feeling quite proud of themselves.
https://www.facebook.com/zrinkamuzin...36098335796305

The first item on today’s City Council agenda—specifically regarding the residents over at 81 Main Street—has finally wrapped up. They've reached a decision that should, in theory, protect the rights of everyone living there.
The conclusions essentially boil down to a few key changes regarding existing contracts. Starting July 1st, we’re looking at those agreements being converted to indefinite terms. There's also a plan to lower rent for those qualifying under social assistance categories, along with a reduction in electricity costs for tenants—specifically by shifting them from industrial rates over to standard residential pricing.
Once today's conclusions are actually carried out, I suppose we might finally be able to say that the rights of the residents in this building—which has been built and maintained through decades of their own hard work and contributions—will truly be protected. Maybe then, they’ll actually be able to live their lives with a bit more peace and security.
I feel a certain sense of pride seeing that our advocacy over the last few months has actually paid off. It looks like we might finally be able to settle this issue once and for all. I suppose the residents over at 81 Main Street truly earned this win; after all, it’s really on all of us to ensure that citizens aren't left stranded in some sort of legal limbo through no fault of their own. Helping people secure their basic stability should be a given, I guess.

The Republican Party in San Francisco.

Thanks to the persistent efforts of our City Council members and our Vice President, we’ve finally secured some resolutions that should protect the rights of the residents over at 81 El Paso in the long run.

If the opposition hadn't dragged this matter before the City Council, I suspect we wouldn't be seeing any resolution at all. It’s honestly a bit baffling why this wasn't addressed much sooner; it almost makes it seem as though the opposition were the ones who actually stepped up to get things sorted out.

Emily Smith6 said:The City Council just pushed through that resolution regarding the proposed "singles hotel," and apparently, the residents were so thrilled about it that they were practically hugging the officials. It’s quite the scene.

The City Council just reached a unanimous decision regarding the property over on 81st Street. For those tenants who qualify under the protected rent provisions, their lease rates will be set to match current standards. We’re also looking at reviewing the specific requirements for contract addendums to ensure we can offer indefinite terms, provided there are clearly defined termination clauses in place. On top of that, the Department of Public Works has been tasked with coordinating with Exelon to handle the utility reclassification, effectively switching the electricity rates from industrial back to residential. The goal is to have all the groundwork completed by the end of June, which should hopefully allow tenants to start signing their new contract addendums starting July 1st.

A group of rather enthusiastic residents were seen practically hugging the lead official after he fought tooth and nail to get this specific issue onto the City Council agenda.

It seems someone is feeling quite proud of themselves.
https://www.facebook.com/zrinkamuzin...36098335796305

The first item on today’s City Council agenda—specifically regarding the residents over at 81 Main Street—has finally wrapped up. They've reached a decision that should, in theory, protect the rights of everyone living there.
The conclusions essentially boil down to a few key changes regarding existing contracts. Starting July 1st, we’re looking at those agreements being converted to indefinite terms. There's also a plan to lower rent for those qualifying under social assistance categories, along with a reduction in electricity costs for tenants—specifically by shifting them from industrial rates over to standard residential pricing.
Once today's conclusions are actually carried out, I suppose we might finally be able to say that the rights of the residents in this building—which has been built and maintained through decades of their own hard work and contributions—will truly be protected. Maybe then, they’ll actually be able to live their lives with a bit more peace and security.
I feel a certain sense of pride seeing that our advocacy over the last few months has actually paid off. It looks like we might finally be able to settle this issue once and for all. I suppose the residents over at 81 Main Street truly earned this win; after all, it’s really on all of us to ensure that citizens aren't left stranded in some sort of legal limbo through no fault of their own. Helping people secure their basic stability should be a given, I guess.

The Republican Party in San Francisco.

Thanks to the persistent efforts of our City Council members and our Vice President, we’ve finally secured some resolutions that should protect the rights of the residents over at 81 El Paso in the long run.

If the opposition hadn't dragged this matter before the City Council, I suspect we wouldn't be seeing any resolution at all. It’s honestly a bit baffling why this wasn't addressed much sooner; it almost makes it seem as though the opposition were the ones who actually stepped up to get things sorted out.

next step is just cloning Đerek
who could possibly handle all this alone
she's claiming those fossils from the national heritage foundation won't even answer her, while the idiots in the news
found them another debt to deal with
just screw those fossils, seriously

Quincey:

Đerek: The national heritage foundation in San Francisco hasn't been paying rent properly—they didn't stick to the deals, so I didn't renew their lease A few days ago, we sent a formal letter to the branch, specifically to President Snježana Šetka, asking them to settle the debt immediately and provide the statement requested. They haven't replied to the letter, nor have they reached out or sent the statement. For comparison, the US government—even though it owns a massive amount of commercial real estate in San Francisco—leases everything out at market rates without restricting how the space is used.

Emily Smith6 said:The City Council just pushed through that resolution regarding the proposed "singles hotel," and apparently, the residents were so thrilled about it that they were practically hugging the officials. It’s quite the scene.

The City Council just reached a unanimous decision regarding the property over on 81st Street. For those tenants who qualify under the protected rent provisions, their lease rates will be set to match current standards. We’re also looking at reviewing the specific requirements for contract addendums to ensure we can offer indefinite terms, provided there are clearly defined termination clauses in place. On top of that, the Department of Public Works has been tasked with coordinating with Exelon to handle the utility reclassification, effectively switching the electricity rates from industrial back to residential. The goal is to have all the groundwork completed by the end of June, which should hopefully allow tenants to start signing their new contract addendums starting July 1st.

A group of rather enthusiastic residents were seen practically hugging the lead official after he fought tooth and nail to get this specific issue onto the City Council agenda.

It seems someone is feeling quite proud of themselves.
https://www.facebook.com/zrinkamuzin...36098335796305

The first item on today’s City Council agenda—specifically regarding the residents over at 81 Main Street—has finally wrapped up. They've reached a decision that should, in theory, protect the rights of everyone living there.
The conclusions essentially boil down to a few key changes regarding existing contracts. Starting July 1st, we’re looking at those agreements being converted to indefinite terms. There's also a plan to lower rent for those qualifying under social assistance categories, along with a reduction in electricity costs for tenants—specifically by shifting them from industrial rates over to standard residential pricing.
Once today's conclusions are actually carried out, I suppose we might finally be able to say that the rights of the residents in this building—which has been built and maintained through decades of their own hard work and contributions—will truly be protected. Maybe then, they’ll actually be able to live their lives with a bit more peace and security.
I feel a certain sense of pride seeing that our advocacy over the last few months has actually paid off. It looks like we might finally be able to settle this issue once and for all. I suppose the residents over at 81 Main Street truly earned this win; after all, it’s really on all of us to ensure that citizens aren't left stranded in some sort of legal limbo through no fault of their own. Helping people secure their basic stability should be a given, I guess.

The Republican Party in San Francisco.

Thanks to the persistent efforts of our City Council members and our Vice President, we’ve finally secured some resolutions that should protect the rights of the residents over at 81 El Paso in the long run.

If the opposition hadn't dragged this matter before the City Council, I suspect we wouldn't be seeing any resolution at all. It’s honestly a bit baffling why this wasn't addressed much sooner; it almost makes it seem as though the opposition were the ones who actually stepped up to get things sorted out.

I guess Đerek just has way too much on her plate right now... and unfortunately, she hasn't figured out how to clone herself yet so she can tackle everything at once......☕

What’s happening here in San Francisco is just surreal. And honestly? A little scary to watch.
It hits me hard thinking about how much money—probably hundreds of billions over the last thirty years—has just vanished through sheer incompetence at the federal level.
🤦

Gross.

mellowseal1 said:I guess Đerek just has way too much on her plate right now... and unfortunately, she hasn't figured out how to clone herself yet so she can tackle everything at once......☕

What’s happening here in San Francisco is just surreal. And honestly? A little scary to watch.
It hits me hard thinking about how much money—probably hundreds of billions over the last thirty years—has just vanished through sheer incompetence at the federal level.
🤦

Gross.

Even worse is knowing that some voters are actually willing to look the other way on this theft just because of their political ideology.

Christian Torres3 said:Even worse is knowing that some voters are actually willing to look the other way on this theft just because of their political ideology.

Yeah. A lot of people don't even see anything wrong with this whole circus.
Honestly, anyone who had the chance to take advantage and didn't is just a fool...
That’s just the classic American narrative...☕

It’s not a done deal just yet. Maya promised she'd have them sorted out before her term ends—or, if all else fails, find them a new spot entirely.

The stadium at the waterfront has been going downhill since the day they broke ground.
Walmart’s been struggling ever since it opened its doors.
Even that massive mall downtown has been sliding toward mediocrity from the moment it was partially finished.

And now, this total spit of a politician wants to build a brand new stadium? 🙏

It’s pure megalomania, right up there with the Republican Party and Donald Trump. 🙏>

While everyone was busy throwing spit at Ivošević over those antisemitism allegations, they were actually busy renovating luxury apartments they snagged for pennies on the dollar. 🤣

Ed Garvey and Ivošević should probably just commission a life-sized statue of Đerek.

The very association whose leaders slammed Puljkov’s deputy for antisemitism has been running an illegal short-term rental business out of downtown San Francisco waterfront property.

'She told us the association no longer holds the lease for the office space, and instead, the former president of the association, Jakov Perić, is using the space by changing the locks and converting it into a rental unit. We want to point out that according to the records there is evidence that Reić Šerbo also requested expanding their operations into lodging services and lowering the rent, despite having secured a preferential rate through a public tender. Reić Šerbo was supposed to terminate the lease once they stopped using the space, but she never did.

While Šerbo was busy turning those apartments into marble-clad retreats, she was playing the moral high ground regarding Ivošević's antisemitism. It's quite a move. 😉 I bet the Jewish community is going to be pretty fed up with these kinds of charlatans trashing their reputation...

2021. - Jewish Friends Association: We are appalled by Bojan Ivošević's statement

“We are appalled by the statement made by the candidate for the Office of the Deputy Mayor of San Francisco, Boris Ivošević,” stated the press release signed by the association's president Jakov Periš and secretary Smiljan Reić-Šerbo.

Maya's little adventures in San Francisco feel like they’re being played out from some twisted script written by Miljenko Smoje.
Someone really ought to turn this into a movie one day...
Pure parody ☕

Not a single local news outlet in San Francisco bothered to cover this gut-wrenching story: "Dad Budimir is to blame; we were all building without permits."🤔

Ed Garvey really went after Dad regarding that unpermitted build. A 1,450 sq. ft. little place that’s probably worth at least half a million bucks by now. The Republican Party knows how it works...

8. Ownership share: 136/438 CONDOMINIUM (E-8)
portion which is the co-ownership interest associated with the entirety of unit no. 4 on the 3rd floor / loft level,
with a total area of 135.64m2, access via an internal shared two-way staircase,
consisting of, located on the 3rd floor, three rooms, a living room, kitchen, toilet,
dining area, two hallways, and a bathroom, with a net area of 83.53m2, plus a loft area consisting of a study
with a total area of 26.68m2, along with attached terrace 1 measuring 12.73m2, terrace 2 measuring 6.29m2,
and a storage unit measuring 6.41m2.
BUDIMIR IVICA SON OF ANDRIJA

Not everyone builds illegally. We all know that kind of luxury is reserved for a specific few.

Back then, everyone did things that way. That’s the simple explanation given by the Republican Party vice chairman in San Francisco regarding his residence in an unpermitted house. There is no justification for why that massive family home in the Firulama area stands there, considering it sits on land designated for public and social use. Schools, churches, and tech parks belong there. The City Planning Department’s master plan doesn't include illegal houses.

The City Planning Department's master plan doesn't have a special clause allowing huge, beautiful family homes right in the middle of a social zone. But according to the Republican Party vice chairman, "everyone did it that way back then." By "back then," he means the late nineties. He isn't talking about fifty years ago, out in the middle of nowhere far from civilization. Even "back then," it was clear that if you wanted to build a house in America's second-largest city, you needed a building permit.

However, not everyone followed that pattern, despite the casual dismissal from the Republican Party vice chairman. Most of us actually put in the work to deal with the bureaucracy and the paperwork—administration that is largely controlled by the very party that holds significant power in San Francisco. For most, it meant navigating stamps, blueprints, permits, property records, and deeds. We had to pay the fees, patiently wait in lines, and sign endless mountains of tedious paperwork. Ultimately, we built our homes in full compliance with the law.

If we consider that most people actually built their homes legally, then the vice chairman's sweeping conclusion—that "everyone" acted that way—doesn't describe the majority of people known to the rest of the world. It turns out he's talking about a small minority who feels entitled to speak on behalf of "everyone."

Looking back over the last few decades of politics, it isn't hard to see where this vice chairman's casual mindset comes from.

I guess, can city code enforcement officers ask to see an ID, or does the police department have to go with them?

https://www.facebook.com/bojan.ivose...26526705488384

Bojan Ivošević
2 h ·
Even before hiring private security, the San Francisco City Code Enforcement team started enforcing the decision on public order and peace. Yesterday, they issued the first 13 tickets for drinking in the historic downtown area, which are $300 each (or $150 if you pay within three days).

The squatters from the Budimirov camp are providing plenty of inspiration for Megatroll 😁

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid...15365193952802

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid...15365193952802

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid...15365193952802

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid...15365193952802

https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid...15365193952802 ( honestly, I'm betting this Facebook status was written by Ivica, not Milena 😉 )

Dana Martin95 said:I guess, can city code enforcement officers ask to see an ID, or does the police department have to go with them?

https://www.facebook.com/bojan.ivose...26526705488384

Bojan Ivošević
2 h ·
Even before hiring private security, the San Francisco City Code Enforcement team started enforcing the decision on public order and peace. Yesterday, they issued the first 13 tickets for drinking in the historic downtown area, which are $300 each (or $150 if you pay within three days).

The authority given to city code enforcement was expanded quite a few years ago, ☕
but I suppose you really need to know the laws inside and out. 🍿

"I think, therefore I am." I.B.

While thinker I.B. enjoys an illicit tryst with the leading lady of the Sell California movement, Michelle Obama, the Sell California crowd is busy focusing on their "liberation" "efforts". Not to mention the rumors regarding an illegal affair between his own writer and Jerry Brown... 😁

The fine for vomiting in public spaces is set at $165.

But what happens if someone actually gets sick—like, genuinely ill? It’s especially easy for that to happen in San Francisco, where the Boardwalk constantly smells... well, let's just say it's an experience (not shaming the city or California at all; I'm from there, so I'm just stating facts—or at least my own experiences). Or maybe the heat hits you, or someone steps off a boat feeling nauseous, etc., etc.

I totally get penalizing people if they're clearly just drunk, but I don't really get the blanket rule. Vomiting during the summer—especially in crowds as thick as the ones in San Francisco—is hardly a rare occurrence given everything else going on.

Jerry Brown—well, the City—will never hear the end of it for hiking up utility rates for Madison Square Garden. Madison Square Garden is looking at roughly $83 in utility fees, while the New York City Arena is facing about $3,000. And they justified it by saying it was "in accordance with the rules." As if a city like San Francisco doesn't already have world-class venues. It's a disgrace. Honestly!

And then, of course, they turn around and start building or renovating or whatever else they do with stadiums. 🤣

Gary Patel said:The fine for vomiting in public spaces is set at $165.

But what happens if someone actually gets sick—like, genuinely ill? It’s especially easy for that to happen in San Francisco, where the Boardwalk constantly smells... well, let's just say it's an experience (not shaming the city or California at all; I'm from there, so I'm just stating facts—or at least my own experiences). Or maybe the heat hits you, or someone steps off a boat feeling nauseous, etc., etc.

I totally get penalizing people if they're clearly just drunk, but I don't really get the blanket rule. Vomiting during the summer—especially in crowds as thick as the ones in San Francisco—is hardly a rare occurrence given everything else going on.

Jerry Brown—well, the City—will never hear the end of it for hiking up utility rates for Madison Square Garden. Madison Square Garden is looking at roughly $83 in utility fees, while the New York City Arena is facing about $3,000. And they justified it by saying it was "in accordance with the rules." As if a city like San Francisco doesn't already have world-class venues. It's a disgrace. Honestly!

And then, of course, they turn around and start building or renovating or whatever else they do with stadiums. 🤣

The Boardwalk doesn't smell; it's just the scent of that sulfur stream that's been there forever, which is probably why the palace ended up being built right there in the first place. And I bet that wouldn't smell bad to you, "Gary Patel"...☕ Regarding the comment about Madison Square Garden...👍

So, what if Bamdic gave them a sweetheart deal on the arena? Does that mean San Francisco should just hand out discounts to private companies for Madison Square Garden too?

Edit: Looks like amberjackal68 weighed in too. Honestly, I’m not even surprised you’re one of those people rooting for giving a massive discount to some private corporation...

vividraven79 said:So, what if Bamdic gave them a sweetheart deal on the arena? Does that mean San Francisco should just hand out discounts to private companies for Madison Square Garden too?

Edit: Looks like amberjackal68 weighed in too. Honestly, I’m not even surprised you’re one of those people rooting for giving a massive discount to some private corporation...

I had absolutely no idea it was private, and frankly, I don't care. All I know is that I lost my gym. A whole bunch of fit women (who were actually the reason I went to the gym) lost their fitness spot, and a ton of kids, middle-aged folks, and people with disabilities lost their hall—and those kids actually had stuff going on there. Look... I've mentioned this plenty of times before: someone needs to look at what Tacherica said a long time ago... there is no such thing as "society," there's just a bunch of private interests clashing. Have our smart local small business owners been offered any kind of alternative? Where is our Mayor? Is he actually doing anything, or is he just running around playing pretend, dreaming about becoming the next Prime Minister? And whose money is he burning to do it?