Look, we're not inherently against marketing the city. Tourism is a massive economic engine, and SF has genuine appeal: world-class food, stunning parks, iconic landmarks, and neighborhoods with real character. As one local put it, "Just choose a neighborhood and go explore. You can spend multiple days in Golden Gate Park and probably still wouldn't see everything." That's not wrong. The bones of this city are extraordinary.

But here's the thing — the best tourism marketing is a city that markets itself. People post Instagram stories from places that feel safe, clean, and vibrant. They recommend cities where they had a great time, not cities where they stepped over a needle on the way to Fisherman's Wharf. No amount of Times Square LED real estate fixes the fundamentals.

The question we should be asking isn't whether the ad looks cool. It's: how much did this cost, who approved the spend, and what's the measurable ROI? San Francisco has a long and colorful history of dumping public dollars into splashy campaigns while ignoring the unsexy infrastructure problems — housing, transit, public safety — that actually determine whether tourists come back.

And speaking of spending problems, this broader pattern of throwing money at optics rather than outcomes is a recurring theme in Bay Area governance. One SF resident captured the frustration perfectly: agencies "can claim whatever you want, but they have a spending problem." That skepticism isn't cynicism — it's pattern recognition.

We'd love to see San Francisco pack Times Square with tourists who came here and couldn't stop talking about it. But that requires making the city worth visiting first and advertising second. A billboard is a promise. Right now, we're writing checks our sidewalks can't cash.

Clean up the city. Fix the basics. The five-star Yelp reviews will follow — no jumbotron required.