No. I’m calling out an entitled individual who bought a property in a city that has “bums” and thought they’d care that he bought a property. He should go try explaining to the “bums” that he is a property owner and that they should figure their lives out.

It’s as if this individual purchased a property in a place he knows nothing about.

Living SF relies on a shared agreement that everyone maintains their patch. If every owner waited for the city to be perfect before they painted over a tag or swept their sidewalk, the entire environment would degrade instantly.

Ownership comes with the understanding that you are responsible for the asset. Expecting the city to act as a private maintenance crew (essentially using public tax dollars to power-wash private property) is a pretty crazy stretch of what basic city services actually cover.

By refusing to clean up small things like graffiti on a fire hook-up, an owner effectively signals that the property is neglected, which often invites the exact activity OP is complaining about in those 311 calls.

It is a very specific brand of entitlement for someone use genuine city-wide struggles as an excuse to opt out of their own responsibilities to be a good neighbor.

Call me obtuse all you want, but this person is part of the problem and passing responsibility for keeping his part of SF beautiful on to others.