Out of control San Francisco shoplifting forcing Walgreens to close 17 stores(sfchronicle.com)
sfchronicle.com
Out of control San Francisco shoplifting forcing Walgreens to close 17 stores
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/Out-of-control-Organized-crime-drives-S-F-16175755.php
207 comments
> This isn’t unique to Walgreens this is affecting independent convenience stores and markets as well and it’s really disheartening to witness on a nearly day to day basis.
This needs to be repeated.
Some left leaning folks like to say "oh it's Walgreens, they're a corporation and the losses are immaterial."
When this happens to independent mom & pop shops, they close up much sooner.
This needs to be repeated.
Some left leaning folks like to say "oh it's Walgreens, they're a corporation and the losses are immaterial."
When this happens to independent mom & pop shops, they close up much sooner.
> left leaning
I don't think it's benefitting us to lump all left-leaning people together. What you're describing is an extremism problem on the left that has largely gone unaddressed or downplayed that is highly agitating, divisive, and nonsensical. As anyone can point out this happened on the right too, and in that time it became fashionable to consolidate all conservatives, but I'd remind you this behavior was absolutely wrong. I encourage all average constituents to push back on extremism in their own parties, very vocally, so that we're less dependent on this cross talk correction.
I don't think it's benefitting us to lump all left-leaning people together. What you're describing is an extremism problem on the left that has largely gone unaddressed or downplayed that is highly agitating, divisive, and nonsensical. As anyone can point out this happened on the right too, and in that time it became fashionable to consolidate all conservatives, but I'd remind you this behavior was absolutely wrong. I encourage all average constituents to push back on extremism in their own parties, very vocally, so that we're less dependent on this cross talk correction.
[deleted]
> left leaning folks
Are you for real? That is far left thinking, where reason was pushed out by ideology. Not left leaning folks.
Its absolutely moronic not going after crime, all it is doing is incentivize people who break it.
The stories of current SF sounds like that meme of a dog sipping a tea in a house on fire saying 'this is fine'.
Are you for real? That is far left thinking, where reason was pushed out by ideology. Not left leaning folks.
Its absolutely moronic not going after crime, all it is doing is incentivize people who break it.
The stories of current SF sounds like that meme of a dog sipping a tea in a house on fire saying 'this is fine'.
So, CA has massive and growing wealth inequality that has resisted carceral solutions for over three decades. The prisons are already overflowing, and federal courts have ordered the state to reduce its prison population which requires "soft on crime" policies like this. There's literally no legal alternative except to go on a prison-building spree. Glad you found a stimulating meme reference point though.
Well current state of affairs is clearly not working, and you propose to continue doing it?
That's the definition of madness.
If you fall into swamp, not moving will buy you time, but will still lead to drowning.
That's the definition of madness.
If you fall into swamp, not moving will buy you time, but will still lead to drowning.
> except to go on a prison-building spree
Okay, let's do that instead. I'd way prefer to have more prisons than for theft to be legal.
Okay, let's do that instead. I'd way prefer to have more prisons than for theft to be legal.
The fact that anyone can see rampant crime in their community and think "that's okay, the victims of this crime are people I don't like anyway" and just ignore it is insane to me.
As a Brit I'm always shocked when visiting America and the high levels of crime and desperate people. I'm talking clearly mentally ill people in wheelchairs on street corners. No-go zones (for white people). Open selling of drugs near tourist hotspots with young families nearby.
It's like a weird mix of a wealthy 1st world country with all the problems of a 3rd world one.
Here in the UK we clearly have our own problems, but stuff like this just wouldn't be tolerated.
It's like a weird mix of a wealthy 1st world country with all the problems of a 3rd world one.
Here in the UK we clearly have our own problems, but stuff like this just wouldn't be tolerated.
Or no go towns for black people. I feel like america demonstrates the worst and best society has to offer.
> Or no go towns for black people.
Yes of course - but I'm white so was just describing my experience.
Yes of course - but I'm white so was just describing my experience.
Agree. Every time I visited the US it was worse. The desperation, the trash, the roads full of holes, the broken down cars, clearly crazy people walking the streets. Mixed with little islands of smug self-important doing-well people who clearly didn’t care about the misery surrounding their little island. We are no longer planning to visit the US. It is too depressing.
One thing that surprised me last time I was in London were the signs everywhere warning about people in bikes snatching your phone.
I visited SF a few years ago on a road trip and was very shocked by all the smashed car windows and feared for my car. This third world vibe intertwined with pricey restaurants was unreal. Added on top of people screaming in the streets and a public freakout (of rich people) in a room in my hotel with police coming in the middle of the night, I ended up really scared of the craziness of that city.
An extreme contrast between poor and rich is common in third world countries. In many poor nations, you can find high end places for the ultra-wealthy not too far from slums. What I'm saying is that you're not seeing "third world intertwined with pricey restaurants", you're simply getting the full third world vibe in SF.
This. I was in Pune, 5* hotel district. One foot out of the district and boom you are metal scrap district. I think its probably understandable that poorest allocate close to the richest - better left overs, hand wave charity etc. (Charity is good, but just giving money to drug addicts is not really working out, just to clarify distinction)
It was really odd experience, but I was the only one from the hotel traversing the city map on foot. In the night a lot of folks without "metal scrap real estate" would spawn at the edges of the district, put a card board and sleep. They would sleep there since its safe and nobody had heart to force them out in the night. Daytime different story -> go be someones else problem.
SF was not this crazy, but similar vibes.
It was really odd experience, but I was the only one from the hotel traversing the city map on foot. In the night a lot of folks without "metal scrap real estate" would spawn at the edges of the district, put a card board and sleep. They would sleep there since its safe and nobody had heart to force them out in the night. Daytime different story -> go be someones else problem.
SF was not this crazy, but similar vibes.
I think they see it as less crime as asset redistribution. The wealth that they feel ought to have been transferred by taxes is being taken more directly in the sense of Anatole France's "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor ... to steal bread."
Nb: I am explaining a viewpoint not taking a position myself
Nb: I am explaining a viewpoint not taking a position myself
[deleted]
the knuckleheads will tell your insurance covers everything as if business is in to lose money guaranteed...
Some "left leaning folks"? Are you legitimately attempting to politicize theft?
Unfortunately, it already is. See the looting =reparations that was common on social media during the blm riots. Similarly, the "fuck the corporations, it's just property" crowd that was really prevalent on reddit then. Those are both solidly left, just as qanon is solidly right.
Amp links cause I'm on mobile
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/reparati...
Amp links cause I'm on mobile
https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.yahoo.com/amphtml/reparati...
I think saying these fringe "political" groups are "solidly left" or "solidly right" really feeds into the hate and divisiveness they are designed to create. They're all either misled and disinformed or misleading and disinforming. They have no place in politics and are largely designed to generate that "us vs them" mentality. These groups are the fringest of the fringe and are far from "solid"
I believe you might be misunderstanding me here. I mean you're not going to find left-aligned people supporting QAnon, while the same applies to BLM reparations talk for the right.
I recall seeing an interview of random people in SF, and most of them say that this is simply redistribution of wealth for equity. Some politicians/pundits also publicly said last year that shoplifting or destroying properties are for social justice.
So I guess SF progressives welcome shoplifting? Maybe there is a way to force Walgreen to reopen their stores for more wealth redistribution?
So I guess SF progressives welcome shoplifting? Maybe there is a way to force Walgreen to reopen their stores for more wealth redistribution?
In so cal there's a rather terrible chain of grocery stores called Stater Brothers. Like (nearly?) all grocery stores they have two entrances-- one that drops you into alcohol section, the other in the dairy.
Theft of alcohol has become such a problem that they've started remodeling stores to remove the entrance directly in front of the alcohol. Meaning, if you now wish to steal alcohol, you have to enter from the opposite side of the building and walk behind or in front of 10 cashiers.
I've witnessed many alcohol thefts in my day. The staff isn't authorized to stop the people (nor should they frankly), and the official position of the police department in my area is they do not respond to calls for anything less than an assault.
Theft of alcohol has become such a problem that they've started remodeling stores to remove the entrance directly in front of the alcohol. Meaning, if you now wish to steal alcohol, you have to enter from the opposite side of the building and walk behind or in front of 10 cashiers.
I've witnessed many alcohol thefts in my day. The staff isn't authorized to stop the people (nor should they frankly), and the official position of the police department in my area is they do not respond to calls for anything less than an assault.
Shouldn't a suitcase's worth of products be valuable enough to do something? I could somewhat understand ignoring say, if a person stole a single item under $10. There's not enough resources to go after truly petty theft.
I'd be surprised if a suitcase-sized quantity of things didn't reach the $950 threshold.
I'd be surprised if a suitcase-sized quantity of things didn't reach the $950 threshold.
Should be but prop 47 decriminalized property crimes below $950 a day so cops don’t do anything and DAs like Chesa Boudin do nothing even when violent criminals are caught, so they definitely won’t do anything about theft. Even if DAs prosecute, juries won’t convict and judges won’t sentence. The justice system in San Francisco is a farce.
Last time I went to Target in SF (on Geary) I saw a car waiting outside and someone running with their arms full of stuff out the door and hop in the car. Last time I went to a Walgreens I saw people with masks on just taking backpacks full of stuff. It’s starting to feel like anarchy.
Last time I went to Target in SF (on Geary) I saw a car waiting outside and someone running with their arms full of stuff out the door and hop in the car. Last time I went to a Walgreens I saw people with masks on just taking backpacks full of stuff. It’s starting to feel like anarchy.
> Should be but prop 47 decriminalized property crimes below $950 a day
No, it didn’t:
(1) It didn’t decriminalize anything[0], and
(2) for the acts it reduced the severity of the available criminal pubishment for to which $950 is a relevant amount: (a) the limit applies per act not per day, a d (b) the scope is much narrower than “property crimes”, generally.
[0] try to satisfy anyone advocating decriminalization of X by reducing some instances of X from a felony to a misdemeanor.
No, it didn’t:
(1) It didn’t decriminalize anything[0], and
(2) for the acts it reduced the severity of the available criminal pubishment for to which $950 is a relevant amount: (a) the limit applies per act not per day, a d (b) the scope is much narrower than “property crimes”, generally.
[0] try to satisfy anyone advocating decriminalization of X by reducing some instances of X from a felony to a misdemeanor.
>[0] try to satisfy anyone advocating decriminalization of X by reducing some instances of X from a felony to a misdemeanor.
DA Boudin has made it clear that such "minor" crimes won't be prosecuted. Period. That's decriminalization, de facto if not de jure.
DA Boudin has made it clear that such "minor" crimes won't be prosecuted. Period. That's decriminalization, de facto if not de jure.
> DA Boudin has made it clear that such "minor" crimes won't be prosecuted.
To the extent that may be true that’s DA Boudin, not Prop 47.
To the extent that may be true that’s DA Boudin, not Prop 47.
The threshold is $950:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_California_Proposition_47
Thanks, I have updated my comment with the figure.
"I'd be surprised if a suitcase-sized quantity of things didn't reach the $950 threshold" how would that surprise you? A whole cart full of things is under 300.
A 4-pack of razor cartridges is $20 at a convenience store. The markup means a relatively small volume of space can translate to rather significant dollar amounts. Lots of small, expensive products are sold inside these type of stores: makeup/beauty products, etc.
of groceries, sure. Of liquor?
[deleted]
I can't help but wonder if this is one of the ways the police "get back" at our local DA (whom they obviously don't like). If the police simply refuse to respond to crimes, they can then blame the increased crime rate on the DA.
It's not to "get back" at the DA or because the police don't like him. It's to best utilize their finite resources. There's no point in wasting time arresting people whom the DA is basically certain to immediately drop the charges against.
There's no point in "wasting time" stopping someone from walking out of a store with a suitcase full of stolen goods? Seems to me like that's a worthwhile service to provide whether or not you can rack up some vanity points with a conviction.
I don't know if you're aware of the details of the DA you mentioned previously, but he won't prosecute these crimes, so they'll be back to steal again in a few hours.
He won't even prosecute DUIs or home robberies; they're 'victimless'.
Someone who committed robbery was out committing another robbery, and DUI, on New Years Eve and fatally ran over two young women in a hit-and-run. [1]
A prominent investor, Cyan Banister, has delayed deleting Twitter solely to help the Recall Chesa campaign [2], because the DA is still in office, destroying the city and countless lives.
I genuinely believe that Chesa's parents being found guilty of murder and not being around to raise him [3] likely impacts him and his policy to this day; that's more than a kid should ever have to go through. I hope he finds peace, but not at the cost of an entire city [4].
[1] https://abc7news.com/pedestrian-safety-sf-san-francisco-hit-... [2] https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-burglary-da-chesa-boudin-... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin [4] https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/lawlessness-in-san-fra...
He won't even prosecute DUIs or home robberies; they're 'victimless'.
Someone who committed robbery was out committing another robbery, and DUI, on New Years Eve and fatally ran over two young women in a hit-and-run. [1]
A prominent investor, Cyan Banister, has delayed deleting Twitter solely to help the Recall Chesa campaign [2], because the DA is still in office, destroying the city and countless lives.
I genuinely believe that Chesa's parents being found guilty of murder and not being around to raise him [3] likely impacts him and his policy to this day; that's more than a kid should ever have to go through. I hope he finds peace, but not at the cost of an entire city [4].
[1] https://abc7news.com/pedestrian-safety-sf-san-francisco-hit-... [2] https://abc7news.com/san-francisco-burglary-da-chesa-boudin-... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin [4] https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/lawlessness-in-san-fra...
In fact I am aware of that, which is the whole premise of this thread. As I mentioned elsewhere, the police can do things to affect a situation even if they don't lead to a conviction. The question is why they may choose not to.
As much as we hate to admit it the threat of punishment probably has some amount of deterrent effect on crime. If a particular crime is sure not to be punished then people will make a different calculation when deciding whether to do that crime.
The pendulum is going to swing the other way on this stuff. The only question is how painful it's going to get before people realize that we need both carrots and sticks.
The pendulum is going to swing the other way on this stuff. The only question is how painful it's going to get before people realize that we need both carrots and sticks.
Literally what is the point of stopping him if he will not be convicted and will be back at the store with his suitcase within a week?
Are you expecting police to be posted at the doors of all these stores?
Yes, because crime is so bad that almost every department, convenience, and grocery store has armed security patrolling outside and guarding the entrance. This isn't a thing in other cities. Even in the south side of Chicago. As a new transplant to SF it seems like shoplifting is actually encouraged here. If I was poor and broke, i would 100% be shoplifting every day. Could probably make a pretty easy 50k a year shoplifting tactically.
[deleted]
Of course not, my point is that there are things the police can do without a conviction, and they do those things in many circumstances. For example, police can famously seize property they believe was involved in a crime.
If it were truly impossible to follow up on someone stealing in broad daylight, that would be the case whether they could secure a conviction or not. If there are officers nearby (as there often are near downtown Walgreens), you might think they would respond once in a while. Presumably they are not, or the staff wouldn't be under the impression that they "don't care".
If it were truly impossible to follow up on someone stealing in broad daylight, that would be the case whether they could secure a conviction or not. If there are officers nearby (as there often are near downtown Walgreens), you might think they would respond once in a while. Presumably they are not, or the staff wouldn't be under the impression that they "don't care".
I live in SF but I admit I don't really keep up with politics and policy as much as I should. Is our police force actually strapped for resources? I saw an ad on a muni stop the other day for SF Police that highlighted a starting salary of $95k which seems pretty attractive.
Decades of research in management has shown that money is not the sole, or even major, driver of workplace motivation. Workers of all type, including cops, are motivated to put in hard work when they feel like their efforts are recognized and contribute to making a tangible difference.
Generally that's the exact opposite that police in SF have faced over the past few years. Rather than being recognized and respected, they've been repeatedly told, by their own superiors, that they're abusive, reckless and part of a system of oppression. Rather than making a difference, they're participants in a Kafka-esque circus where the criminals they arrest in the morning are released and committing crimes by the afternoon.
I agree that criminal justice reform is important. But there's no politically viable route to that end if it means a mass decline in public safety. And there's no way to ensure public safety, unless police officers feel valued, empowered, motivated and proud to show up for work. You can't just repeatedly demonize and bureaucratize the police, and not expect their performance to degrade because you throw money at them.
Generally that's the exact opposite that police in SF have faced over the past few years. Rather than being recognized and respected, they've been repeatedly told, by their own superiors, that they're abusive, reckless and part of a system of oppression. Rather than making a difference, they're participants in a Kafka-esque circus where the criminals they arrest in the morning are released and committing crimes by the afternoon.
I agree that criminal justice reform is important. But there's no politically viable route to that end if it means a mass decline in public safety. And there's no way to ensure public safety, unless police officers feel valued, empowered, motivated and proud to show up for work. You can't just repeatedly demonize and bureaucratize the police, and not expect their performance to degrade because you throw money at them.
If the police force becomes useless, do you think the CCSF laws might change for self protection to become easier? I know guns are outlawed and knifes of certain length (as an example).
95K is not that much when two of your largest thoughts every day are; 1) how do I not die, and 2) how do I not get sued.
1) there has not been police officer death in SF in 15 years [1]
2) Unlike most professions, police officers enjoy qualified immunity which prevent civil charges from being pursued in all but most extreme cases.
2) Unlike most professions, police officers enjoy qualified immunity which prevent civil charges from being pursued in all but most extreme cases.
For sure. But every cop has to deal with those thoughts, and most do it for far less than $95k. At the very least it seems enticing enough to attract a sizable pool of applicants.
Are you comparing incomes in different locations without factoring in the cost of living difference?
I factored it in casually but didn't do any arithmetic. My point wasn't really that 95k is a lot, but it's a pretty solid starting salary in any city. Certainly more than my starting salary out of college.. by about 30k. And I lived in NYC on my starting salary so I understand the COL factor. I've also lived in SF on less than 100k and as long as you have a roommate or two, which most 'starting salary'-age people do, then 95k can go pretty far. This wasn't even really my main point which was essentially "are these criminals not being arrested because our police force is understaffed / strapped for resources, or is it the case that we have plenty of cops but they just don't bother to go after these criminals"...
Bay Area cops can make a decent chunk of change. I was surprised when I saw a FB announcement by a local officer who purchased a $2M home in Millbrae.
He's in his early 30's and may have some sort of residual pay from his time in the armed forces. But I think a lot of it comes from overtime pay, which can really add up.
He's in his early 30's and may have some sort of residual pay from his time in the armed forces. But I think a lot of it comes from overtime pay, which can really add up.
To be clear, a $2M home in Millbrae is no mansion. Homes in Millbrae cost an average of $964/ft². The national average is $123/ft². It's equivalent to about a $250K home in an average town.
Not a mansion, but it's still notable that an officer could accumulate a 20% downpayment with post-tax earnings. That's $400,000, which would require banking $40,000 of after-tax earnings per year for 10 years. That's perhaps $60,000 in pre-tax earnings.
that salary is less attractive considering the current trend of blaming and even defunding police for doing their job.
who in their right mind would want to protect and serve when they are called "murderers" and "racists" on daily basis and any routine arrest can potentially lead to country wide riots and years in prison for the officer.
who in their right mind would want to protect and serve when they are called "murderers" and "racists" on daily basis and any routine arrest can potentially lead to country wide riots and years in prison for the officer.
I can't speak to SF, but this is exactly the dynamic that's been happening for years up here in Portland. The PPA tells officers to slow roll on crimes that create political pressure every time a candidate for mayor or council that will reform them appears viable. Sadly it's a very effective tactic.
The police have given up on property crimes in Seattle for the most part, and the shoplifting has in some cases gotten quite brazen and violent.
Based on how weak Portland is on prosecutions, can you blame them? I mean, why arrest and book if they are out on the street that afternoon?
That's not what's driving the dynamic here, particularly since the election of our current DA. He wants to hold the police accountable and they're at all out war vs him.
The article claims this is a direct result of Prop 47, which lowered penalties for shoplifting stuff worth less than $950.
Organized crime groups just steal $949 per person from each store, and hit multiple stores in a day.
The law makes it difficult for the police to prosecute them — a given person would need to be caught and prosecuted once for multiple crimes (that were probably committed in multiple districts, etc.).
Even then, with all that effort, they get to bust someone for shoplifting.
They could go after the leaders of the organized crime groups. I wonder why they haven’t.
Organized crime groups just steal $949 per person from each store, and hit multiple stores in a day.
The law makes it difficult for the police to prosecute them — a given person would need to be caught and prosecuted once for multiple crimes (that were probably committed in multiple districts, etc.).
Even then, with all that effort, they get to bust someone for shoplifting.
They could go after the leaders of the organized crime groups. I wonder why they haven’t.
> They could go after the leaders of the organized crime groups. I wonder why they haven’t.
The standard approach is to charge the lackeys and have them roll on their superiors. If the only threat to the lackeys is a slap on the wrist, they’re not going to rat out anybody.
The standard approach is to charge the lackeys and have them roll on their superiors. If the only threat to the lackeys is a slap on the wrist, they’re not going to rat out anybody.
Considering consumer tech like Apple Airtags exist, it seems like it’d be easy to tag some frequently stolen goods and track them back to where they’re fenced and resold. They should punish the buyers of stolen goods since they obviously aren’t going after the thieves.
It's these areas it's not politically possible to prosecute the thieves. How will it be politically possible to prosecute the people just buying groceries?
It's not exactly getting back. If the DA isn't going to do anything why would you arrest someone?
I'm thinking the police aren't involved what-so-ever and this is more about the shop owners' senioritis now that their mission to deliver huge amounts of opioids into suburban areas[1] has been accomplished and it's time to go home.
[1] https://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2020/11/17/down_here...
[1] https://www.realclearbooks.com/articles/2020/11/17/down_here...
If you've ever visited a small grocery/convenience/pharmacy type store in a developing nation environment where law enforcement is almost nonexistant, the standard system is that there's a counter and you have to ask the staff for each item. Customers are not allowed in the area where the stock is kept.
In the US, it's not uncommon for certain items, especially small, high-value items, to be kept in locked glasses cases. Customers have to get an employee to unlock the cabinet to purchase those items.
And in places like Costco, if you want to buy a gift card you bring a cardboard token from the aisle up to the register. They ring you up and instruct you to take your receipt to a special room where they fetch the real gift cards after verifying your receipt.
And in places like Costco, if you want to buy a gift card you bring a cardboard token from the aisle up to the register. They ring you up and instruct you to take your receipt to a special room where they fetch the real gift cards after verifying your receipt.
I've always wondered: what's the point of the gift card system at Costco? Don't most stores solve this nicely by making the gift cards valueless until "activated" by the cash register system?
As I understand it, the gift card scam goes like this:
1. Perp steals the inactivated gift card, takes it home
2. At home, they scratch off the activation code, record it, and re-apply some scratch off coating
3. They reverse shoplift the gift card and return it to the store
4. They then set up some script to continuously try the gift card activation code
5. Legitimate customer buys and activates the gift card
6. Perp now gets access, and drains the funds before the legit customer can use them
1. Perp steals the inactivated gift card, takes it home
2. At home, they scratch off the activation code, record it, and re-apply some scratch off coating
3. They reverse shoplift the gift card and return it to the store
4. They then set up some script to continuously try the gift card activation code
5. Legitimate customer buys and activates the gift card
6. Perp now gets access, and drains the funds before the legit customer can use them
It seems to me that two simple steps would go a long way to reducing the effectiveness of this:
1. Require a CAPTCHA when attempting to redeem a gift card's code
2. If someone has tried to redeem an unactivated gift card's code before, the point-of-sale system should refuse to let that gift card ever be activated, instead telling the cashier to throw it away and get the customer a different one
1. Require a CAPTCHA when attempting to redeem a gift card's code
2. If someone has tried to redeem an unactivated gift card's code before, the point-of-sale system should refuse to let that gift card ever be activated, instead telling the cashier to throw it away and get the customer a different one
Isn't the activation code scratch off area covered with a very hard to counterfeit zigzag/special material moire pattern?
Sure, but now you have to train your checkout staff to be experts in scratch off coating design. Retailers are definitely adding training material to help, but it still happens.
You can easily buy a roll of them as stickers for a few cents each, no special machinery needed to apply.
That is how most grocery stores do it, but Costco offers GCs to local restaurants that I've never seen elsewhere (Armadillo Willy's!). It's quite possible that the GCs from these restaurants are not capable of being secured/activated in this way.
Or it could just be that they want to have a big display with cardboard logos that will catch the attention of shoppers.
Or it could just be that they want to have a big display with cardboard logos that will catch the attention of shoppers.
I assume it’s because they also do things like “movie ticket vouchers” (which are just paper). That way there’s one dedicated-ish room for all the gift card exchanges.
costco also does this with lots of higher value things, like a gopro or a laptop, if you want to buy it you take the cardboard tag to the checkout and then they give it to you after payment.
for those who don't know. Here's some pics of colmados (convenience stores) in the Domincan Republic:
- https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GSXubTkd6ak/UxxWpzd4E8I/AAAAAAAAI...
- https://jetsettlersmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/dr1.jp...
- https://www.colonialzone-dr.com/images/Colmado-Pilona-Colmad...
- https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-GSXubTkd6ak/UxxWpzd4E8I/AAAAAAAAI...
- https://jetsettlersmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/dr1.jp...
- https://www.colonialzone-dr.com/images/Colmado-Pilona-Colmad...
There are stores like this in Connecticut, USA.
The West coast is lacking in small independent convenience stores. Something like the land got parceled out and ballooned in value before the thrifty shop owner types were able to set up at a cost accessible to a private citizen. Thats my guess at least.
The West coast is lacking in small independent convenience stores. Something like the land got parceled out and ballooned in value before the thrifty shop owner types were able to set up at a cost accessible to a private citizen. Thats my guess at least.
Connecticut was established before the industrial revolution, so most towns are pedestrian friendly and can support small stores.
You also get armed guards in bigger malls in DR where shoplifting might be possible.
That is exactly the same layout as many small convenience stores in Pakistan.
This is how grocers used to work in the US too.
Ironically that wasn’t to prevent theft; it was just considered to be better customer service.
It probably saves a ton of space and tidying, but at the expense of needing more staff to serve.
It would be beneficial in total labor today, especially in a store with employees picking for curbside exists. Stocking is a big effort overnight. Restocking is problematic during the day, and costs sales. These normal processes (busy people doing stocking and ordering, and inventory existing in 2 places) makes ordering harder. If customers would accept the change it might happen. The rub is studies show customers don't like it, and no browsing means lower sales.
In El Salvador all groceries and pharmacies have a tiny window with metal bars. You ask what you need from the street and they give it to you through the bars.
Al Jazeera English recently showed a documentary about street gangsters in Port Moresby, New Guinea (apparently a very dangerous place), all the grocery stores looked like that.
It might have to go back that way, or I'm thinking that US chains might look at the staffing costs and figure out something like how to deploy the largest versions of the vending machines seen in Japan.
This was how Redbox started. It was a joint venture of Coinstar and McDonald's.
https://www.deseret.com/2003/11/13/19795398/redbox-kiosks-cl...
The pivot to only renting DVDs came shortly afterward.
https://www.deseret.com/2003/11/13/19795398/redbox-kiosks-cl...
The pivot to only renting DVDs came shortly afterward.
Or they will close their CA stores and continue to operate in the rest of the country.
Or just everything via Amazon.
Why don't they hire private security? Surely he's hourly rate would be less than what's being stolen?
There are stores like this on the east coast. Items stocked in littke shelves up against plexiglass and you ask the clerk for each one.
In the case of Portland, there is a problem where there are virtually no independent mom & pop corner stores and rightfully no one really cares if the earth's 20th most profitable corporation gets looted.
In the case of Portland, there is a problem where there are virtually no independent mom & pop corner stores and rightfully no one really cares if the earth's 20th most profitable corporation gets looted.
There might be more independent mom & pop corner stores if looters didn't always get away with their crimes.
Now that I think about it, I've never been there or seen one in person, but some of these stores are shown in The Wire, in a particularly troubled part of Baltimore. Sort of like an armored bodega.
> A statement from Safeway read at Thursday’s hearing blamed Proposition 47, which lowered penalties for thefts under $950, for “dramatic increases” in shoplifting losses.
$950 seems extremely high as the threshold for punishment (especially considering many crimes won't be caught and prosecuted), but also how can you shoplift $950 worth of stuff at a Walgreens?
$950 seems extremely high as the threshold for punishment (especially considering many crimes won't be caught and prosecuted), but also how can you shoplift $950 worth of stuff at a Walgreens?
I don't think the limit matters much. There was an SF crime ring that was designed to operate just under the limit. Have each person steal $900 worth of concentrated laundry detergent, razors, otc medicine. Setting the penalty threshold at $400 would only require more trips.
They had an entire warehouse full of product: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/10/06/major-san-franc...
They had an entire warehouse full of product: https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/10/06/major-san-franc...
if they can know about the warehouse, surely they can be charged with conspiracy to commit major crimes (like laundering those stolen items).
> $950 seems extremely high as the threshold for punishment
Prop 47 made this the threshold for a Felony. Misdemeanor shoplifting can still be up to 6 months in prison. In practice it's not, but that's something to take up with the police, prosecutors, and judges.
Prop 47 made this the threshold for a Felony. Misdemeanor shoplifting can still be up to 6 months in prison. In practice it's not, but that's something to take up with the police, prosecutors, and judges.
The issue in SF is the prosecutor. Police decide whom to arrest based on what will be prosecuted, so that is a downstream decision.
The judges could reduce sentences if these cases ever got in front of them, but in reality they never have the opportunity to weigh in.
The judges could reduce sentences if these cases ever got in front of them, but in reality they never have the opportunity to weigh in.
These claims about prop 47 seem either ill-informed or disingenuous.
Prop 47 reduced certain categories of crimes to misdemeanors. You can be sentenced to up to 12 months in prison for a misdemeanor, which seems like plenty for shoplifting. If nothing else, a year in jail prevents people from shoplifting for that year, and they probably would be less likely to do it openly the second time.
Prop 47 reduced certain categories of crimes to misdemeanors. You can be sentenced to up to 12 months in prison for a misdemeanor, which seems like plenty for shoplifting. If nothing else, a year in jail prevents people from shoplifting for that year, and they probably would be less likely to do it openly the second time.
You’re unlikely to spend time in jail for a non-violent felony in SF. Nobody is going to jail for a misdemeanor.
That's true, and it's because our prisons and jails have been beyond capacity for years. Elevating a bunch more crimes to felony status isn't going to change that fact.
Having zero consequences for criminal behavior will make sure the problem only gets worse.
What relevance does that have to prop 47. Ok, so we repeal prop 47 and we pick up a guy for shoplifting $600 worth of merchandise. Yesterday it was a misdemeanor, but in this hypothetical it's a felony today. Yesterday the jails were too full to prioritize holding that guy, and that's still true today because reclassifying crimes doesn't reduce our massive prison population or build new prisons. The consequences are the same. The only difference is that now the guy might have to start telling prospective employers that he's a convicted felon, which doesn't exactly bode well for his ability to pick up an honest job.
I would argue that, regardless of punishment, reclassifying serious crimes as misdemeanors sets a tone that encourages further law breaking.
It's the "broken window" theory. Ignore minor crimes and you just create an environment that encourages more serious crimes.
It's the "broken window" theory. Ignore minor crimes and you just create an environment that encourages more serious crimes.
Classifying a minor crime as a minor crime does not imply "Ignore minor crimes", esp. considering the minor crime can carry significant jail time. Lack of consistent enforcement (and the root cause behind that) appears to be the issue.
Printer ink if it’s left out maybe? A few red bull cans.
Printer ink in those quantities is probably only useful to businesses who don't really want to buy stolen printer ink (especially considering Walgreens is probably carrying genuine supplies when you can get 50% cheaper generic). Plan B is expensive, maybe that would work (I don't know if it's always locked up).
You can resell the items on ebay and Amazon. I used to know independent stores that would purchase merchandise to stock the shelves with too.
It doesn't necessary have to be fenced via a criminal org.
A certain pocket sized paint tube from hobby lobby sells on Amazon for 10$.
Criminals who are above the level of drug user/shoplifter, like a dealer, for example, can and do have to time to set up shops and sell online.
Its all part of the larger hustle.
If it makes money, they do it.
Traditional economics and game theory all apply, its not following the law that differentiates the criminal.
It doesn't necessary have to be fenced via a criminal org.
A certain pocket sized paint tube from hobby lobby sells on Amazon for 10$.
Criminals who are above the level of drug user/shoplifter, like a dealer, for example, can and do have to time to set up shops and sell online.
Its all part of the larger hustle.
If it makes money, they do it.
Traditional economics and game theory all apply, its not following the law that differentiates the criminal.
I don't think most folks commiting crimes are busy doing some sort of risk / reward calculation based on the cost of a fine.
They do.
Criminals are extensively aware of sentencing of crimes. Its one of the main subjects of conversion in jails. I know this from being acquainted with many criminals as a result of taking drugs for many years. "That's theft over 1000, Bubbles" -Trailer Park Boys
Criminals are extensively aware of sentencing of crimes. Its one of the main subjects of conversion in jails. I know this from being acquainted with many criminals as a result of taking drugs for many years. "That's theft over 1000, Bubbles" -Trailer Park Boys
Why wouldn't you? They arnt oppertunistically snatching some gum on the way out, they go to the store specifically to commit a crime. They have plenty of time to plan things out.
There was a walgreens in downtown oakland that was smashed during the BLM protests. They decided to just never open up again, because theft had cut into their margins so much.
A quick search on YouTube shows this is no joke.
[Shoplifters Steal from Walgreens in San Francisco Unimpeded.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLbvtRIo3i8)
[Customer Seen Jumping Over Counter to Shoplift at Walgreens](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FmN4e1fNUo)
[Sting Operation Busts Professional Theft Ring With Millions In Stolen Merchandise](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8iKPRYfugA)
It's becoming clearer by the day how bad policies and lack law of enforcement is degrading the Bay Area and is driving people away in droves.
[Shoplifters Steal from Walgreens in San Francisco Unimpeded.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLbvtRIo3i8)
[Customer Seen Jumping Over Counter to Shoplift at Walgreens](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FmN4e1fNUo)
[Sting Operation Busts Professional Theft Ring With Millions In Stolen Merchandise](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8iKPRYfugA)
It's becoming clearer by the day how bad policies and lack law of enforcement is degrading the Bay Area and is driving people away in droves.
Here’s the SFPD crime dashboard: https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crim... where you can compare which crimes have gone up
The point is that the crime isn’t even being written up by police.
Or reported by victims. Plenty of people get windows smashed on their car, get them fixed and never report it.
“Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard” -hL Mencken
This happened on a daily basis at their mid market location. Saw it so many times on my way to work.
A worthwhile read about the current SF DA that might explain a lot: https://stanfordreview.org/chesa-boudin-san-francisco-crime/
Maybe this guy is genuinely the devil, but this article starts off with some pretty blatant political name-calling that makes it hard to believe it's delivered without skew or omission.
Part of the issue is that these sorts of policies have been around for a long time.
A while ago drug courts were popular. Then someone realized that in order for drug courts to work, you have to charge people with drug offenses. So they stopped sling drug courts.
It’s dumb.
A while ago drug courts were popular. Then someone realized that in order for drug courts to work, you have to charge people with drug offenses. So they stopped sling drug courts.
It’s dumb.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Cash bail repeal has been done in a lot of jurisdictions and it's a favorite target of conservatives as a "soft on crime" policy but really is just basic fairness. Bail is only intended to insure that defendants appear for trial. The underlying crimes are never supposed to be a consideration. Until the trial happens no guilt can be assigned and confinement is unconstitutional.
I wonder if you'd feel that same if someone who attempted to murder you got out with no bail, and got a second chance to get you. After all, they were not yet CONVICTED of anything, right?
Is it just be or are we just repeating the cycle of big cities?
- City expands, lots of jobs, people move there
- City is mismanaged, middle class flee, city gets worse
- City stagnates for a while and either dies or makes a comeback
- Rinse and repeat
- City expands, lots of jobs, people move there
- City is mismanaged, middle class flee, city gets worse
- City stagnates for a while and either dies or makes a comeback
- Rinse and repeat
There are European cities have been around for a long time without experiencing those cycles. So clearly it is not inevitably.
maybe in a western democracy. wouldn't fly in the wild-west where the store owner would shoot you or in a fascist state where the police will.
Protecting property is a basic duty of government, clearly it failed.
recall the DA, Chesa Boudin https://recallchesaboudin.org/
their "restorative justice" policy is sending criminals back to the streets as soon as they're arrested
https://www.zenger.news/2021/02/16/jogger-killed-by-repeat-o...
their "restorative justice" policy is sending criminals back to the streets as soon as they're arrested
https://www.zenger.news/2021/02/16/jogger-killed-by-repeat-o...
These Walgreens are pharmacies where many homeless get their medications.
I’ve seen people in the middle of a mental health episode wander in, and a security calmly “manage” them until the pharmacist can figure out and fill their prescription.
These are literally medical facilities being shut down - facilities that serve those most in need.
If 17 reproductive health clinics shot down, the feminists would be up in arms.
If 17 HIV clinics shut down, gay rights activist would be up in arms.
These pharmacies provide birth control, plan b, HIV medication, etc.
Not to mention COVID vaccines …
This is a crisis, not an inconvenience.
I’ve seen people in the middle of a mental health episode wander in, and a security calmly “manage” them until the pharmacist can figure out and fill their prescription.
These are literally medical facilities being shut down - facilities that serve those most in need.
If 17 reproductive health clinics shot down, the feminists would be up in arms.
If 17 HIV clinics shut down, gay rights activist would be up in arms.
These pharmacies provide birth control, plan b, HIV medication, etc.
Not to mention COVID vaccines …
This is a crisis, not an inconvenience.
> If 17 reproductive health clinics shot down, the feminists would be up in arms. If 17 HIV clinics shut down, gay rights activist would be up in arms. These pharmacies provide birth control, plan b, HIV medication, etc.
Hmm while I agree with you this is a crisis, but to directly relate feminists to birth control and gays to HIV treatment will raise some eyebrows.
Hmm while I agree with you this is a crisis, but to directly relate feminists to birth control and gays to HIV treatment will raise some eyebrows.
I guess anything will raise someone’s eyebrows these days, but there’s a long history of those groups supporting those specific causes.
To pretend it never happened is to deny credit where credit is due.
https://outofthecloset.org/
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-souther...
To pretend it never happened is to deny credit where credit is due.
https://outofthecloset.org/
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/planned-parenthood-souther...
The connection to feminists and access to birth control is well established.
Regarding my comment about gay rights groups and HIV, I was specifically thinking of ACT UP: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_UP
Regarding my comment about gay rights groups and HIV, I was specifically thinking of ACT UP: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACT_UP
Why would that be?
no joke
Unsurprising outcome of systemic poverty and a complete lack of real social safety net.
People want the homeless to simply go away and die quietly somewhere, but no, people need to survive, and if need be petty theft is the way to continue living. People need food and people need to fed their chemical addictions. With the lack of services theft is an answer.
If people don't want to experience petty theft well then we need to ensure that every person has food and housing. Create a safe supply of free prescribed drugs so that people don't need to steal to get cash to buy drugs from the street.
These are simple solutions but of course they cost money, so if your top priority is keeping taxes low, well they're impossible and so the status quo of systemic poverty, misery and crime continues.
People want the homeless to simply go away and die quietly somewhere, but no, people need to survive, and if need be petty theft is the way to continue living. People need food and people need to fed their chemical addictions. With the lack of services theft is an answer.
If people don't want to experience petty theft well then we need to ensure that every person has food and housing. Create a safe supply of free prescribed drugs so that people don't need to steal to get cash to buy drugs from the street.
These are simple solutions but of course they cost money, so if your top priority is keeping taxes low, well they're impossible and so the status quo of systemic poverty, misery and crime continues.
I don't understand how this can be your position when CA has both some of the highest taxes and best social safety net in the country, but also some of the worst homelessness and crime in the country.
It's super easy to end up homeless in CA. Just run out of money.
Source: I ran out of money in CA in 2009, ended up homeless.
Source: I ran out of money in CA in 2009, ended up homeless.
That's literally everywhere. California has one of the most tenant friendly landlord laws, so if you run out of money, California is probably the last state that you would become homeless due to how insanely long it takes for landlords to evict.
I became homeless by choice. The thing you're missing is that if your landlord tries to evict you, you'll end up with a record of that eviction on your record. The next time you try to rent an apartment, you'll be super screwed. I was able to get enough money together a couple months after being homeless, and I was able to get another apartment because I didn't have an eviction on my record.
Can you take advantage of the landlord by not paying rent for several months? Sure. But that's not a social safety net. It's an inefficiency in the system that will screw you if you use it, kind of like overdrawing a checking account & calling it free money.
Can you take advantage of the landlord by not paying rent for several months? Sure. But that's not a social safety net. It's an inefficiency in the system that will screw you if you use it, kind of like overdrawing a checking account & calling it free money.
Even if they're best in the USA is lmao is that ever low bar if we're talking about social safety net.
I'm just saying that the correlation doesn't make much sense. If more taxes and more government action was the "simple solution" as my parent said, then CA would have less homelessness and crime than the rest of the nation. The opposite is true.
The costs of living are higher in CA too
And do you think very high taxes is a solution to this problem? Do you consider the high COL to be unrelated to the policies that CA has?
I think the solution to homelessness and petty theft is to house people. Typically such housing is only deliverable by the state and taxes are a way to pay for it.
I know that the status quo of not housing people is not going to solve homelessness.
If California feels it is "tapped out" of taxing its citizens and yet is unable to build housing to house its population, maybe it needs to have a look at what it's spending its money on.
(Of course the fact that Prop 13 exists means there's plenty of more tax room...)
I know that the status quo of not housing people is not going to solve homelessness.
If California feels it is "tapped out" of taxing its citizens and yet is unable to build housing to house its population, maybe it needs to have a look at what it's spending its money on.
(Of course the fact that Prop 13 exists means there's plenty of more tax room...)
"complete lack of real social safety net."
What are you talking about? San Francisco has one of the most comprehensive, robust, and we'll funded social safety nets in america, and probably on par with some Scandinavian countries. The amount of resources spent per homeless and crime-commiting citizen is world class. What do you think is missing in terms of social safety net?
What are you talking about? San Francisco has one of the most comprehensive, robust, and we'll funded social safety nets in america, and probably on par with some Scandinavian countries. The amount of resources spent per homeless and crime-commiting citizen is world class. What do you think is missing in terms of social safety net?
Literally exactly what I said. Homes. Safe supply. There's thousands of homeless in SF. Poverty is growing over time.
If the safety net was good you would not have street homeless.
If the safety net was good you would not have street homeless.
You figured it out
California is anything but a low tax place to live, but they also have tons and tons of property crime.
If you read the article, you'd know that Walgreen attributes 85% of theft loss to organized crime. Nice screed tho.
Yeah and the article says the police don't agree.
Lack of a safety net is not what brings these people to San Francisco.
[deleted]
"San Francisco Deputy Public Defender Doug Welch called in to the hearing to say his clients charged with shoplifting are not part of organized crime, but are homeless or struggling with substance abuse and need more services."
As if is not stealing if you are a druggie or homeless.
As if is not stealing if you are a druggie or homeless.
> As if is not stealing if you are a druggie or homeless.
It's arguably a different thing if you're stealing out of necessity or because you're systematically stealing in a large fashion for personal enrichment. Yes, both is a loss, but the latter one is arguably more malicious.
That being said, if stores need to close down because your homeless/addict population is so large that they're basically raiding the stores, you have a far bigger problem on your hands.
It's arguably a different thing if you're stealing out of necessity or because you're systematically stealing in a large fashion for personal enrichment. Yes, both is a loss, but the latter one is arguably more malicious.
That being said, if stores need to close down because your homeless/addict population is so large that they're basically raiding the stores, you have a far bigger problem on your hands.
It is the job of a public defender to defend his clients. His statement here is absolutely correct. Prosecutors, on the other hand, have to decide what their jobs are.
The purpose of that statement was to point out that it's not like it's hardened criminals stealing novelty items, but homeless and struggling individuals needing basic necessities.
But sure, you're welcome to be as cynical as you'd like.
But sure, you're welcome to be as cynical as you'd like.
What are the conditions of sf's homeless shelters? How easy is it for a homeless person to get a square meal or shelter through legal means? Being homeless or poor is only an excuse for stealing if you cannot reasonably get your basic needs met in a legal way.
This is SF. It’s literally illegal for them to take a crap.
After all the public bathrooms were eliminated, the city made an app so you can send them pictures of human feces. That way they can send someone out to clean it up. I guess that’s cheaper than maintaining actual restrooms.
After all the public bathrooms were eliminated, the city made an app so you can send them pictures of human feces. That way they can send someone out to clean it up. I guess that’s cheaper than maintaining actual restrooms.
What are you talking about? What their world country are you from wheres shitting on the street is legal? I'm fairly certain that public defecation is illegal everywhere, and probably gets you on a sex offender list in a lot of states.
The reason public bathrooms were eliminated is because they become dens for heroin use. Always fun going to the bathroom with your kids to find druggies rolling on the floor with heroin needles scattered about. How do you maintain a bathroom with homeless people injecting heroin? You need police for that, not simple bathroom cleaners. I'm ultra leftist, but this degeneracy of enabling drug addiction and encouraging crime and homelessness only serves to produce more crime, more homelessness, and more suffering.
The reason public bathrooms were eliminated is because they become dens for heroin use. Always fun going to the bathroom with your kids to find druggies rolling on the floor with heroin needles scattered about. How do you maintain a bathroom with homeless people injecting heroin? You need police for that, not simple bathroom cleaners. I'm ultra leftist, but this degeneracy of enabling drug addiction and encouraging crime and homelessness only serves to produce more crime, more homelessness, and more suffering.
The Portland Loo isn’t a den for anything:
https://portlandloo.com/
In European countries, it’s quite common to find public bathrooms with attendants who charge a nominal fee.
In Japan, public bathrooms are common and amazing. (Public trashcans are a different story.)
In cities near SF (excluding Palo Alto), perfectly nice public bathrooms are common in parks.
https://portlandloo.com/
In European countries, it’s quite common to find public bathrooms with attendants who charge a nominal fee.
In Japan, public bathrooms are common and amazing. (Public trashcans are a different story.)
In cities near SF (excluding Palo Alto), perfectly nice public bathrooms are common in parks.
[deleted]
I don't live in SF so I won't speak to their particularities but in the cities I have lived in the shelter capacity is below the homeless population, that's for sure.
The sad truth is the easiest way for a homeless person to get a place to sleep and a reliable food supply is to be incarcerated. It is something I don't hear a lot of people talking about but a non-trivial part of our absurdly large prison population are people who habitually reoffend because they have nowhere else to go to begin with. Once you've got a criminal record and you already have no support system on the outside, breaking the cycle is damn near impossible.
We end up paying for it either way so it is a problem worth addressing, at least in my opinion.
The sad truth is the easiest way for a homeless person to get a place to sleep and a reliable food supply is to be incarcerated. It is something I don't hear a lot of people talking about but a non-trivial part of our absurdly large prison population are people who habitually reoffend because they have nowhere else to go to begin with. Once you've got a criminal record and you already have no support system on the outside, breaking the cycle is damn near impossible.
We end up paying for it either way so it is a problem worth addressing, at least in my opinion.
Being homeless is pretty tough under "the best of circumstances." From what I gather, the pandemic has been hella hard on the homeless population. It's been nightmarish for many of them.
> What are the conditions of sf's homeless shelters?
I don't live in SF, but homeless shelters are oftentimes disgusting and terrible places. I don't blame anyone that doesn't want to stay in them if they can figure out other accommodations. Nonreligious based shelters sometimes provide very little in terms of hygiene/necessities/food, sometimes basically nothing other than a small cot or gym mat (aka no food, no shower, etc).
Religious shelters often require religious involvement. Forced praying as an example.
There is also the issue of frequent abuse/sexual assault in homeless shelters.
> Being homeless or poor is only an excuse for stealing if you cannot reasonably get your basic needs met in a legal way.
I don't really think shoplifting food to survive is an "excuse". Again, they're not stealing CD players.
I don't live in SF, but homeless shelters are oftentimes disgusting and terrible places. I don't blame anyone that doesn't want to stay in them if they can figure out other accommodations. Nonreligious based shelters sometimes provide very little in terms of hygiene/necessities/food, sometimes basically nothing other than a small cot or gym mat (aka no food, no shower, etc).
Religious shelters often require religious involvement. Forced praying as an example.
There is also the issue of frequent abuse/sexual assault in homeless shelters.
> Being homeless or poor is only an excuse for stealing if you cannot reasonably get your basic needs met in a legal way.
I don't really think shoplifting food to survive is an "excuse". Again, they're not stealing CD players.
So are we pretending that abuse/sexual abuse of the homeless magically stops when they leave the shelter? Is it even logical to assume that there would be less sexual abuse in the streets than in a shelter?
> So are we pretending that abuse/sexual abuse of the homeless magically stops when they leave the shelter?
If there was a specific location in which sexual abuse was prevalent, and you had to decide whether to go to that place or not, would you?
> Is it even logical to assume that there would be less sexual abuse in the streets than in a shelter?
Is this a serious question? "There is a place with a high percentage of sexual abuse, are you more likely to experience sexual abuse there or not-there?"
If there was a specific location in which sexual abuse was prevalent, and you had to decide whether to go to that place or not, would you?
> Is it even logical to assume that there would be less sexual abuse in the streets than in a shelter?
Is this a serious question? "There is a place with a high percentage of sexual abuse, are you more likely to experience sexual abuse there or not-there?"
I would be interested in reading some actual reporting on this. I have heard plenty of third, fourth, and fifth hand reports of how horrible homeless shelters are. But I don't have anything verifiable.
Lots of perspectives here:
https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-c...
A specific account of sexual abuse in a shelter here:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mayor-orders-probe...
There's plenty of reporting on it. As with all news, it's tough to get realistic accounts of what's going on in shelters because a lot of the people being asked are involved with shelter administration, so obviously there wouldn't be as much emphasis on the bad living conditions. Getting more info from actual homeless people would be helpful, but obviously the entire point is a lot of them are battling substance abuse issues and/or mental health problems, so there are complications on getting decent information out of them.
https://www.npr.org/2012/12/06/166666265/why-some-homeless-c...
A specific account of sexual abuse in a shelter here:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/mayor-orders-probe...
There's plenty of reporting on it. As with all news, it's tough to get realistic accounts of what's going on in shelters because a lot of the people being asked are involved with shelter administration, so obviously there wouldn't be as much emphasis on the bad living conditions. Getting more info from actual homeless people would be helpful, but obviously the entire point is a lot of them are battling substance abuse issues and/or mental health problems, so there are complications on getting decent information out of them.
Yeah I read an account of a girl named Dasani growing up in one of these shelters. Seems not good. I'm not saying people need palatial living conditions but decent food and intact mattresses don't seem like too much to ask.
dahfizz(3)
Not that stealing is ok, but the solution to this problem in the long run is jobs -- lots and lots of green jobs. When you stop moralizing and step back from the situation, you see cost of living skyrocketing and the job market hollowing out from the bottom, and it seems obvious to me that the people on the lowest rungs of the ladder are just falling off and hitting the pavement. We're seeing the effects more and more people with years and years of no income and no prospects. The solution is building a ferocious economic engine that employs people, wants their contributions and cultivates their talents. If jobs were easy to get, like so easy that you could just walk over to the employment center and be working within the day, I just have to believe that this kind of anti-social behavior would quickly get back to normal.
Just prior to Covid, the unemployment rate in San Francisco was 2.1%. About the lowest unemployment rate recorded in any industrialized economy ever in history. In 2019, there was clearly no shortage of jobs, yet the petty crime wave in SF was still out of control.
You clearly haven't been to SF.
Did seriously no one watch Disney's 1992 Aladdin? "Streetrats" get just as hungry as everyone else. If these outfits spent half the money that they do on security on feeding and clothing their neighbors, we wouldn't be in this mess, but shareholders don't appreciate altruism for it's own sake.
From the actual article:
> Retailers attributed a majority of losses to professional thieves instead of opportunistic shoplifters who may be driven by poverty, with one CVS leader calling San Francisco a hub of organized retail crime.
> Retailers attributed a majority of losses to professional thieves instead of opportunistic shoplifters who may be driven by poverty, with one CVS leader calling San Francisco a hub of organized retail crime.
It's actually a bit nuanced — most of the incidents are opportunists, but most of the lost value is due to professionals. Basically, the pros take expensive stuff (presumably for resale) and opportunists take stuff they will use personally (and which might not be worth that much).
> Although the majority of CVS shoplifting incidents in the city are by opportunists, Dugan said, professional crime accounts for 85% of the company’s dollar losses.
> Although the majority of CVS shoplifting incidents in the city are by opportunists, Dugan said, professional crime accounts for 85% of the company’s dollar losses.
Basically, all the people talking about its just the downtrodden trying to get by are trying to score political points, when the core issue is that the repeat criminals are not) insufficiently disincentivized.
15 percent might be a sizable sum, but its clearly not the core problem here.
15 percent might be a sizable sum, but its clearly not the core problem here.
Feeding the wildlife is bad for the park and bad for the animals.
It’s also frustrating as a consumer because I’ve noticed over the past couple years Walgreens’ hours has been reducing, like closing at 7pm at a major intersection for crying out loud. The trend is that operating expenses are increased due to shoplifting thus prices increase and hours reduced which means fewer jobs. We all lose.
This isn’t unique to Walgreens this is affecting independent convenience stores and markets as well and it’s really disheartening to witness on a nearly day to day basis.