She lived in an apartment community where water and other utilities got billed back to residents based on overall community usage. Recently, she’d noticed some individuals, likely unhoused based on what she observed, filling multiple large containers from an outdoor community water spigot and carrying them away. That sight left her genuinely conflicted, since she had no interest in making anyone’s already difficult circumstances harder simply for accessing drinking water, something she recognized as a basic human need regardless of housing status.
At the same time, she was aware that the community’s overall utility costs, including water, had been rising, and residents like herself were the ones absorbing that cost through their monthly billing. That combination, a genuine reluctance to cause harm to people who may be in real need, alongside a legitimate financial stake in understanding what’s actually driving her own rising bills, left her wanting to approach the situation carefully rather than jumping straight to an accusation.
💸 Take Back Control of Your Finances in 2025 💸
Get Instant Access to our free mini course
5 DAYS TO A BETTER BUDGET
Why She Wasn’t Actually Trying to Report Anyone for Wrongdoing
Importantly, she wasn’t planning to frame this as an accusation of theft or claim any direct connection between what she witnessed and the specific rise in her utility costs, since she genuinely didn’t know whether those two things were actually related. Instead, her intended approach centered on asking management a series of factual questions, whether the outdoor water connections were intended for public or nonresident use, whether that kind of usage falls within what residents are already being charged for, and whether overall community water consumption has actually trended upward over the past year.
That framing matters considerably for evaluating whether this constitutes an unreasonable or uncompassionate action. She isn’t asking management to remove access, confront anyone, or treat unhoused individuals accessing water as a problem to be solved through enforcement. She’s asking for transparency about a cost she’s directly and legitimately paying for, a distinction that separates her inquiry from something aimed at punishing people in need.
Why Wanting Billing Transparency Doesn’t Conflict With Compassion
There’s a real distinction between wanting people, regardless of housing status, to have access to basic necessities like drinking water, and wanting clarity about whether unrestricted access through an unsecured connection is something residents are unknowingly subsidizing through their own utility bills. Those two concerns aren’t in tension with each other. It’s entirely possible to hope the water usage continues unimpeded while still wanting an honest answer about whether that usage is factored into resident billing or represents an unaccounted for cost being spread across everyone’s bill without anyone’s knowledge.
If it turns out the water use is already accounted for and doesn’t meaningfully affect resident costs, she’s already indicated she’d be completely at peace with that outcome, reflecting genuine goodwill rather than an underlying desire to see the behavior stopped regardless of the actual financial impact.
Why Property Management, Not Residents Themselves, Bears Responsibility Here
If an unsecured, publicly accessible water source is contributing meaningfully to rising costs that get distributed among paying residents, that’s fundamentally a property management and infrastructure issue, not a matter of individual residents needing to police who accesses shared outdoor spaces. Raising the question with management puts the responsibility for addressing any actual problem exactly where it belongs, with the entity responsible for both securing the property’s utility connections and fairly billing residents for actual consumption, rather than placing that burden on any individual resident to directly confront people accessing water outdoors.
That framing also protects the unhoused individuals themselves from any direct confrontation or unwanted attention from a resident, since the conversation stays entirely between her and management, focused on billing transparency and infrastructure questions rather than surveillance or reporting of specific individuals’ behavior.
Why Asking These Questions Reflects Reasonable Self-Advocacy
Residents are entitled to understand what they’re actually paying for, particularly when utility costs are rising and get distributed across a shared billing structure rather than metered individually per unit. Asking management to clarify whether outdoor water access is accounted for in that billing structure is a reasonable form of self-advocacy around a real, direct financial cost she’s bearing, not an unreasonable overreach into monitoring who uses shared community spaces.
Where This Leaves the Decision
Raising these specific questions with management, framed around transparency rather than accusation, represents a reasonable balance between her legitimate financial interest in understanding her own rising utility costs and her genuine reluctance to cause harm to people who may be in real need of basic water access. She isn’t advocating for anyone’s access to be restricted, she’s asking for clarity about a cost structure she’s already paying into, a request property management should reasonably be able to answer without it needing to result in any negative consequence for the people she observed at the spigot.
Featured on Cents + Purpose: