The city refuses to enforce property crimes. Even if the police make an arrest, nothing comes out of it. Many residents consider it to be "criminalizing poverty", thus it is socially unacceptable to enforce property crimes. Sure, there are specific roles (e.g. the District Attorney) that have control over this, but they answer to city hall, and they respond to voters' desires. Ultimately it's on us residents for how property crime became de-facto legal.

I think it starts with the fact that being penniless is illegal. You can’t poop, you can’t build shelter. You can’t vend small items like snacks or clothing. All of that is illegal. So poverty truly is illegal in SF.

So, the poor will be criminalized regardless of whether they steal, what’s their incentive not to steal? From their perspective, they’re already criminals for not being rich, why not act like it?

Add to that the fact that most plots of land were illegally seized and resold. So from a moral perspective the landowners in SF are criminals too.

The city needs to take those issues seriously before they can reasonably expect the poor to cease their mischief. Without a navigable legal framework for the poor to subsist, and without a property court committed to restitution of stolen land, I don’t see how we can in good faith demand people refrain from stealing iPhones.

Not all of the people committing property crimes are homeless. For example: https://www.insideedition.com/inside-wave-smash-and-grab-car...

Did I suggest they were?