Eric Adams - Mayor of San Francisco

Zachary Anderson20 said:They don't even have all the permits. They only just requested the zoning changes recently.

Are you suggesting that this work is being carried out in total violation of the law?
I mean, what exactly did Ed Lee or Bob do wrong here?
Which specific clause, which article, which statute—or even just some obscure local regulation—was violated?
Please, if you can, point me toward the exact error and tell me precisely what step was supposedly skipped over.

Adam Lee13 said:

I haven't seen anything from kopernik.nikola lately, have you guys? Just feels like they've gone totally off the grid. It’s kind of wild how someone can just vanish from the conversation without a trace, isn't it? One day you're right there in the thick of it, and the next—poof—nothing but digital dust. Anyway, I was thinking about that whole thing earlier while staring at my coffee, wondering if it's just a burnout thing or if they finally realized this place is a complete circus. Probably the latter, honestly. Life's too short for endless internet debates, I guess. kaže:
It’s not like Smili would ever handle things this way.
They really should've been more entrepreneurial about it, though I guess even the most driven people have their limits when things go sideways. Honestly, you’d think they would've seen it coming if they just used a bit of common sense.
Now they’re actually trying to apologize and start looking for excuses? Give me a break.

It’s honestly not even the first time we’ve seen this happening—they just keep hacking away at old trees to make room for whatever new project is on the agenda. I mean, look at that massive garage build; they paid the ultimate price by taking out twenty-seven huge trees just for that. Then you had that whole mess with the local shops down at the intersection near downtown San Francisco, and now it feels like those little corner stores over on the West Side are next on the chopping block. It’s just a cycle at this point. Next thing you know, they’ll be clearing out all the greenery in the suburbs too, leaving nothing but concrete behind.

So I was just looking around the other day, and man, it’s kind of a bummer—it looks like over a dozen trees have completely died off near that stretch of Main Street by downtown... you know, that area right by the old industrial lot? And it’s not just those; even that patch where they planted all that peach and nut trees last year? Yeah, about half of them have already shriveled up and died. Total waste of effort, honestly.🤦

Honestly, there hasn't been a single new tree planted in San Francisco all year. It’s like they just don't care anymore. Now, the administration is just obsessed with pouring as much concrete as possible across the downtown area before they inevitably lose their seats. They're basically just paving over everything while they still have the keys to the city.

And of course, it’s always the local administration's fault for everything. Typical.🤦 It’s about damn time people started seeing through the act. It turns out that guy is just your run-of-the-mill populist—nothing more than a third-rate bluffer. Honestly, the mask finally slipped.☕

And I have a question for you—what exactly did he do to oppose the legislation?

Are you actually suggesting that they aren't planning to plant any greenery or trees over in the Žnjan area?

ironstag8 said:Are you suggesting that this work is being carried out in total violation of the law?
I mean, what exactly did Ed Lee or Bob do wrong here?
Which specific clause, which article, which statute—or even just some obscure local regulation—was violated?
Please, if you can, point me toward the exact error and tell me precisely what step was supposedly skipped over.

Who even said a law was broken?
It could’ve been handled better—this just looks messy.
They should've talked to the owner of the land where Bojan is building—he knows how nice that tree is.
The whole thing is just a massive circus.

ironstag8 said:Are you suggesting that this work is being carried out in total violation of the law?
I mean, what exactly did Ed Lee or Bob do wrong here?
Which specific clause, which article, which statute—or even just some obscure local regulation—was violated?
Please, if you can, point me toward the exact error and tell me precisely what step was supposedly skipped over.

First off, shouldn't the construction site permit have been filed within 8 days of starting? Second, they can literally pull permits for one thing and then go out and do something completely different—which, by the way, would require a public bidding process. On top of that, the City gave them the green light to put up fencing that goes way beyond the actual boundaries. And the project itself? It doesn't even exist; there’s zero documentation in any public records. Honestly, I'm too exhausted to list everything else right now. This whole mess is just typical: every time Puljak brings up some nonsense regarding Central Park, the cleaner, or now this, he dumps it all on an unlucky and stressed-out Bo, and he won't even give him the courtesy of a face-to-face.

Well, Bo is acting as mayor while Ivica is away on business.

Zachary Anderson20 said:First off, shouldn't the construction site permit have been filed within 8 days of starting? Second, they can literally pull permits for one thing and then go out and do something completely different—which, by the way, would require a public bidding process. On top of that, the City gave them the green light to put up fencing that goes way beyond the actual boundaries. And the project itself? It doesn't even exist; there’s zero documentation in any public records. Honestly, I'm too exhausted to list everything else right now. This whole mess is just typical: every time Puljak brings up some nonsense regarding Central Park, the cleaner, or now this, he dumps it all on an unlucky and stressed-out Bo, and he won't even give him the courtesy of a face-to-face.

You presented several points as established facts—the lack of a site permit, the discrepancy in the application, the non-existent project, and the illegal fencing.

It seems Puljak affects you too deeply for you to pass yourself off as a neutral observer.

The so-called independent candidate Zoran Đogaš has spoken out, and Pelegrinka is quoting him regarding his appearance on local radio:

Zoran Đogaš from the Republican Party told the radio station that Pelegrinka has been cut down, yet the city administration avoids answering directly, choosing instead to merely point fingers at the problems left behind by the previous administration.

So, is he actually in the Republican Party or not?

Charles Fox10 said:

ironstag8 Asks:
Which document could have possibly shown them that the tree was being cut down?

The Republican Party... supporting the project? Hardly.

I'm not about to apologize to those idiots. If the project has all its permits, then that’s that. We can all feel bad about the trees if we want, but that's just how it goes.

So, who actually signed off on that permit? How did it happen? Whether there was some backroom deal to favor the developer is a whole other conversation, but honestly, it’s hard to see any real connection between Pellegrinka and the local developers out in the Midwest.

Samo waiting on that one guy to finally speak up. Well, he finally did. Now the city's complete circus is officially in town.

Amen.

I can't wait for them to start dragging Ivica Puljak over that Ad basilicas pictas mess... 🍿

They've got absolutely no shame—blaming everyone else for their own shady schemes...

Eric Lopez79 said:Who even said a law was broken?
It could’ve been handled better—this just looks messy.
They should've talked to the owner of the land where Bojan is building—he knows how nice that tree is.
The whole thing is just a massive circus.

Fair enough. But how exactly could it have been done differently? What specific steps should have been taken to ensure that tree stayed exactly where it was?

Zachary Anderson20 said:First off, shouldn't the construction site permit have been filed within 8 days of starting? Second, they can literally pull permits for one thing and then go out and do something completely different—which, by the way, would require a public bidding process. On top of that, the City gave them the green light to put up fencing that goes way beyond the actual boundaries. And the project itself? It doesn't even exist; there’s zero documentation in any public records. Honestly, I'm too exhausted to list everything else right now. This whole mess is just typical: every time Puljak brings up some nonsense regarding Central Park, the cleaner, or now this, he dumps it all on an unlucky and stressed-out Bo, and he won't even give him the courtesy of a face-to-face.

Could you back those claims up with some actual evidence?

https://www.usa.gov/construction-regulations
Please provide proof that the legal procedure was actually violated.

Regarding the claim about working under the wrong permit—which specific law was broken there? And did you notify the building inspectors? I suspect they'd jump at the chance to slap a fine on Ivica Puljak if they had the opportunity.

As for the dimensions, is the City even allowed to authorize fencing that goes outside the permitted limits? And more importantly, does that extra footprint impact the tree?

Where exactly should this project be available for review, and what is the reasoning behind that requirement?

Why did Ivica Puljak and his team go out of their way to defend an investor who essentially robbed San Francisco residents by bulldozing that old tree on Manuš?

– In theory, certain conditions could have been attached to future permits, but that doesn't stop him from working under the current ones issued back in 2009 – the Deputy Mayor replied. So, instead of waiting for the zoning changes, the developer just sent in the heavy machinery to tear through the canopy and the trunk before the new regulations could actually stop them.

I suppose a portion of the blame for losing this tree has to fall on the City Administration as well. They failed to communicate the critical details of this project—like the removal of the landmark tree—to the public.

Because of this lack of transparency, even the American Institute of Architects raised concerns.

– Regarding the public outcry and how the City handled communication, we are pushing for much more transparency and open dialogue. While our stance remains that a private developer should primarily follow zoning documents and legal regulations—rather than feeling obligated to justify themselves to anyone who thinks they have a say in land use—this is a particularly sensitive situation. It’s specifically problematic because it involves a highly visible location where the City holds ownership and grants building rights (which, frankly, has dragged on far too long with endless variations and design shifts), and there is a requirement to provide numerous public parking spaces, which naturally makes this a matter of public interest.

Moving forward, we view open access, direct communication, and a formal presentation of the project—including how the public will actually use those parking spaces—as essential steps for both the developer and the City Administration. Honestly, if they had just done this from the start, there probably wouldn't even be a "controversy" to speak of. This part was actually included in the DAS press release following the storm of backlash regarding the Mall of America.

It is also vital to address who ordered the tree removed just two days before the summer work ban kicked in—right before the new permit amendments were finalized. From what I can gather, it seems quite clear the developer had no intention of waiting for the tree to potentially receive protection under the new rules; they made their move quickly and very pointedly.

Given all that, the recent nervousness—or even the anger shown by Ivica Puljak after the City Council refused to grant the developer permission to work over the summer—seems even less understandable. It is equally baffling why such a high-profile project, which has been in the spotlight, was never discussed with the American Institute of Architects. Usually, that organization collaborates with the administration on various projects, but in this specific instance, they haven't even been given the documentation being kept under wraps at the Mall of America.

The administration knew what was coming and simply didn't act in time. They failed to anticipate the issue or demand that the developer preserve the tree until the new zoning permit could be issued to protect it.

This is one of the biggest hits this administration has taken, but it wasn't delivered by the opposition. Instead, it came from the very investor they were so vigorously defending just a month ago when they were trying to push his summer work permits through.

The local news might be hesitant to say it, but the truth is that Puljak’s poor communication and failure to present the plan properly is a major mistake.

"The City Administration knew exactly what was coming, yet they failed to step in when it actually mattered. They didn't anticipate the situation, nor did they make it a condition for the developers to preserve the peregrine falcon habitat before issuing the new zoning permits—which would have been the perfect way to protect it."

How can we be certain they saw this coming?
And does the City's request to leave the tree alone actually carry any legal weight that forces the developer to comply?

ironstag8 said:"The City Administration knew exactly what was coming, yet they failed to step in when it actually mattered. They didn't anticipate the situation, nor did they make it a condition for the developers to preserve the peregrine falcon habitat before issuing the new zoning permits—which would have been the perfect way to protect it."

How can we be certain they saw this coming?
And does the City's request to leave the tree alone actually carry any legal weight that forces the developer to comply?

man Bojan is great but he's totally out of line here
he can go talk to the developers or call the press for all I care
he thinks he knows everything—we'll see how long that lasts
no way in hell these guys are cutting down that tree

Eric Lopez79 said:man Bojan is great but he's totally out of line here
he can go talk to the developers or call the press for all I care
he thinks he knows everything—we'll see how long that lasts
no way in hell these guys are cutting down that tree

I’m asking again, though—how did they find out? Is an investor legally obligated to follow a request from the city?

ironstag8 said:I’m asking again, though—how did they find out? Is an investor legally obligated to follow a request from the city?

They don't *have* to listen—but if Bojan wanted to make things happen, he could've just done it.
The whole circus wouldn't be happening right now if this guy had actually accomplished anything.
All that legal talk is just total BS.
I'm not even gonna bother explaining further—it is what it is.

It’s honestly hilarious how everyone loses their minds over a single tree in this country... like, seriously, what's next? Is some developer gonna plant an even older, massive oak just to shut everyone up? :-) The real joke is that none of those massive shopping mall parking lots—except for the Home Depot ones—have a single damn tree in sight.

Jack Collins58 said:It’s honestly hilarious how everyone loses their minds over a single tree in this country... like, seriously, what's next? Is some developer gonna plant an even older, massive oak just to shut everyone up? :-) The real joke is that none of those massive shopping mall parking lots—except for the Home Depot ones—have a single damn tree in sight.

Exactly. Everyone is fighting over one tree, while ignoring the massive investment coming through. Money like that is plenty easy to find if you know where to look. 🤣

Was this actually a legitimate concern, or is Žonja from The New York Post just hyping things up for Ivica Puljak?

INVESTING 270 MILLION DOLLARS
Ivica Puljak turns San Francisco into a construction zone; the City takes on 150 million in debt

A tech park, public garages, daycare centers and schools, a youth center, solar panels on government buildings, a sports complex, and walking paths are just some of the fifty planned projects.

They’re out here running up a $160 million debt... honestly, it's just pathetic how they're screwing us over...🙄

Adam Lee13 said:They’re out here running up a $160 million debt... honestly, it's just pathetic how they're screwing us over...🙄

The city of San Francisco is easily one of the most overlooked municipalities when it comes to budget allocations—it’s just not getting its fair share. Take Charleston, for instance; there isn't a single extra cent left for them to claim.
The Ministry of Finance just released an update regarding the ongoing discussions about the proposed changes to the pension system—specifically focusing on how we handle the transition for various benefit tiers. It’s one of those dense, bureaucratic deep dives that most people would rather skip, but if you look closely at the mechanics of the reform, there's quite a bit to unpack regarding how our social safety net is being restructured to ensure long-term solvency. Essentially, the conversation is shifting toward how to balance the immediate needs of current retirees with the fiscal reality facing younger generations. It's a delicate balancing act—much like trying to fix a plane while it's mid-flight—where every adjustment to the contribution rates or the retirement age sends ripples through the entire economic ecosystem. The goal here isn't just to cut costs, but to create a more sustainable framework that doesn't leave future workers footing an impossible bill. There are significant implications for how different sectors will be impacted by these adjustments, particularly concerning the indexation of benefits. While the government is pushing for stability, the tension between maintaining purchasing power and controlling the national deficit remains the central conflict. It's a classic macroeconomic puzzle, and while the official statements remain cautiously optimistic, the actual implementation will likely face some scrutiny once the fine print is fully digested by the public.

Take a moment to digest that section regarding the 20% margin—once you really wrap your head around those numbers, the true implications of a city taking on massive debt finally start to click.

Debt isn't the issue here; San Francisco isn't struggling with its debt levels. The real test will be whether most of those 50 investments actually get off the ground or reach an advanced stage of development within the next six to twelve months.

Otherwise, all these announcements might end up looking like nothing more than smoke and mirrors—just some comical PR stunt orchestrated through The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times...

That’s why Ivica Puljak and his team need to get down to business and bring in experts who actually know how to execute. If they don't, they risk having these pre-election promises come back to haunt them. They've already burned through half of this term.

ironstag8 said:Could you back those claims up with some actual evidence?

https://www.usa.gov/construction-regulations
Please provide proof that the legal procedure was actually violated.

Regarding the claim about working under the wrong permit—which specific law was broken there? And did you notify the building inspectors? I suspect they'd jump at the chance to slap a fine on Ivica Puljak if they had the opportunity.

As for the dimensions, is the City even allowed to authorize fencing that goes outside the permitted limits? And more importantly, does that extra footprint impact the tree?

Where exactly should this project be available for review, and what is the reasoning behind that requirement?

Oh, please, stop playing dumb. Reporting a construction site is straight out of Section 131 of the Building Code—you have a maximum of 8 days. As for everything else, all the documents are chronologically filed at the CIA, so just go read https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...00064762896267. We’re still waiting on confirmation from the Department regarding the legal deadline for transferring investors and their failure to comply. And yeah, let’s be real: Ivica Puljak and the Cabal could have done way more to protect the public interest instead of catering to those high-society Austrian conservatives. They could have set up a tree registry or protected the trunk; there’s even a green database since the City owns that plot right next to the late Pelegrinka's place.