San Francisco’s Shoplifting Surge(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
San Francisco’s Shoplifting Surge
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/us/san-francisco-shoplifting-epidemic.html
467 comments
The problem is that there's no real evidence that being tough on crime is a very effective way of solving the problem.
You look at jurisdictions that are "soft" on crime - Scandinavia, New Zealand etc. and invariably all of them have figured out non-punitive methods of crime reduction that are far more effective than jail. This is reflected in crime statistics.
(and before you mention Singapore, it's worth pointing out that they have many, many policies in place to alleviate poverty and social unrest - government housing, world class education, a strong economy, national service etc. in addition to their strict laws. I'm not arguing that the laws do nothing, but you can't just beat an uneducated, poor, fatherless person with a stick and expect them to be a productive member of society.)
You look at jurisdictions that are "soft" on crime - Scandinavia, New Zealand etc. and invariably all of them have figured out non-punitive methods of crime reduction that are far more effective than jail. This is reflected in crime statistics.
(and before you mention Singapore, it's worth pointing out that they have many, many policies in place to alleviate poverty and social unrest - government housing, world class education, a strong economy, national service etc. in addition to their strict laws. I'm not arguing that the laws do nothing, but you can't just beat an uneducated, poor, fatherless person with a stick and expect them to be a productive member of society.)
It's not the same because the culture is different.
I suspect a bit of causation-correlation mixup whenever this topic comes up. I have the feeling that the reason why they don't need much punitive measures is because they have so many social safety nets that erase the need to commit crimes in the first place or help people get back in to society after committing a crime. If anyone has any data about whether this is indeed the case or not, I'd love to read about it.
Same with violence and gun policies.
Which is the cause and which is effect?
Or even COVID deaths and lockdowns.
Policy can be as much as outcome as a cause.
Which is the cause and which is effect?
Or even COVID deaths and lockdowns.
Policy can be as much as outcome as a cause.
In Scandinavia and New Zealand people are different.
In terms of realised outcome, maybe. In terms of potential, though, the only difference between a Kiwi baby and an American baby is the fact v that the American baby is expected to fend for itself.
noofen(2)
Genetics is one thing, but there are also environmental differences we don't even know of. One example is lead banned in 70s for its neurological effects. Water in Scandinavia may contain 0.1% less zinc than in SF and that makes a big difference on some neuron properties that we don't know much about.
Higher levels of lithium in drinking water seem to reduce rates of depression and suicide.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-...
The difference -- besides any genetic factors -- is thousands of years of religious, historical, and cultural differences.
And, this not being Brave New World, the baby will be subject to them.
And, this not being Brave New World, the baby will be subject to them.
Thousands of years? Get a grip. The US and New Zealand were only colonized by Europeans within the last few hundred years, and all three countries have generally similar cultural/religious backgrounds.
There's one very important difference, though.
Religions and culture indeed date back thousands of years.
And while the US and NZ we both colonized by Europe (primarily Britain), the latter has a much stronger dose of native and non-European heritage...to an extent such that Maori is actually an official language.
And while the US and NZ we both colonized by Europe (primarily Britain), the latter has a much stronger dose of native and non-European heritage...to an extent such that Maori is actually an official language.
This is true. Their success in life is generally valued by their governments.
[deleted]
You're making so many assumptions. First, that crime rate is linked to policy. Further, it's bizarre to me that you think comparing San Francisco to Scandinavia makes sense but comparing past San Francisco to present San Francisco doesn't. Neither experiment is particularly good but the latter is better.
Leaving that aside for a moment, if there was "evidence" that not punishing murderers was the "best thing for society" (in terms of rehabilitation, crime rate, etc) would you support that policy?
For most people, a society that doesn't punish criminals is simply uncivilized. I tend to agree.
Leaving that aside for a moment, if there was "evidence" that not punishing murderers was the "best thing for society" (in terms of rehabilitation, crime rate, etc) would you support that policy?
For most people, a society that doesn't punish criminals is simply uncivilized. I tend to agree.
> For most people, a society that doesn't punish criminals is simply uncivilized. I tend to agree.
Punishment is one thing, and it certainly is good for a feeling of justice. But the real problem San Francisco is experiencing is lack of deterrent. That's related, but not quite the same.
If there is a way to keep up the deterrent, but sacrifice some punishment to get more rehabilitation then that's worth discussing. That's what Scandinavia is trying to do (in addition to other policies that affect crime rate). A prison turns out to be a good deterrent even if you don't get raped there.
In comparison, just not prosecuting theft at all is removing not just the punishment, it's also removing the deterrent, and I don't see how it's going to rehabilitate anyone. Obviously punishing the theft as a misdemeanor was supposed to be the deterrent, but without enforcement all that's left is a total failure.
Punishment is one thing, and it certainly is good for a feeling of justice. But the real problem San Francisco is experiencing is lack of deterrent. That's related, but not quite the same.
If there is a way to keep up the deterrent, but sacrifice some punishment to get more rehabilitation then that's worth discussing. That's what Scandinavia is trying to do (in addition to other policies that affect crime rate). A prison turns out to be a good deterrent even if you don't get raped there.
In comparison, just not prosecuting theft at all is removing not just the punishment, it's also removing the deterrent, and I don't see how it's going to rehabilitate anyone. Obviously punishing the theft as a misdemeanor was supposed to be the deterrent, but without enforcement all that's left is a total failure.
No amount of deterrent is going to remove the motivation of petty thieves. Give them better means to live a dignified existence without resorting to crime and the problem disappears. Such solutions implicitly demand rethinking housing policy, social welfare and jobs programs. A couple other equally effective, on paper, solutions would be imprisonment and slavery of petty thieves, or murdering them (capital punishment, near genocide, crime against humanity). It's important to consider the privilege, assets, and what people stand to gain or lose when considering solutions. I've got no dog in the fight over problems in California. What's clear is that these problems are systemic and demand a federal solution. The people responsible to enact a federal solution are beholden to the people who stand to lose the most if these systemic issues of housing, healthcare, income, and the like are solved. Tech workers have more in common with the homeless people they step over to get to work than the f500 CEOs telling paying Congress to stall and distract. Bridging this class divide and building solidarity with people we've been taught to think ourselves better than is a foundational step in building the grassroots needed to force change.
Wow that's a lot of buzzwords in one post!
Is a federal solution more likely to be effective for thefts under $950 or is a tailored localized solution?
Is a federal solution more likely to be effective for thefts under $950 or is a tailored localized solution?
Federal courts generally aren’t overloaded the way state courts are, and federal prisons generally aren’t overcrowded the way state prisons are. But if theft of less than $1000 in property became a federal crime that would certainly increase the number of federal cases and federal prisoners.
There’s also a question of how to shoehorn smaller theft into a federal crime. It can be done — any bank robbery is a federal crime regardless of how much money is stolen — but it isn’t straightforward.
There’s also a question of how to shoehorn smaller theft into a federal crime. It can be done — any bank robbery is a federal crime regardless of how much money is stolen — but it isn’t straightforward.
Where I am in California there’s signs up everywhere begging for employees. The wage restaurants need to pay to have a dishwasher in some part of Los Angeles is $21/hr as of a couple weeks ago.
We don’t need deterrent to stop petty thieves. We can just escalate prison sentences exponentially so that we get O(log n) crime instead of O(n).
We don’t need deterrent to stop petty thieves. We can just escalate prison sentences exponentially so that we get O(log n) crime instead of O(n).
> if there was "evidence" that not punishing murderers was the "best thing for society" (in terms of rehabilitation, crime rate, etc) would you support that policy? For most people, a society that doesn't punish criminals is simply uncivilized. I tend to agree.
This is a pretty interesting and concise way to frame this, because I definitely would support such a policy.
Punishments carried out by justice systems are a means to an end. It's sad that even today it's considered the most effective tool for general safety and protection of society.
It strikes me as really strange to consider punishments for crimes as a sort of state-sponsored revenge.
This is a pretty interesting and concise way to frame this, because I definitely would support such a policy.
Punishments carried out by justice systems are a means to an end. It's sad that even today it's considered the most effective tool for general safety and protection of society.
It strikes me as really strange to consider punishments for crimes as a sort of state-sponsored revenge.
It's the fundamental question here. Is justice a "means to an end" or "an end in itself"? You're with the former, I'm with the latter.
I would also attack the notion of "evidence" here. The previous poster is not making an empirical argument at all, he's only pretending to. If Scandinavia had more crime than SF, he would pick another example (notice how he dismisses Singapore for...reasons). He's defending an a priori belief, as am I. Empiricism fails us here, we're arguing over values.
> It strikes me as really strange to consider punishments for crimes as a sort of state-sponsored revenge.
Justice is carried out by a disinterested third party (the state), revenge is not.
I would also attack the notion of "evidence" here. The previous poster is not making an empirical argument at all, he's only pretending to. If Scandinavia had more crime than SF, he would pick another example (notice how he dismisses Singapore for...reasons). He's defending an a priori belief, as am I. Empiricism fails us here, we're arguing over values.
> It strikes me as really strange to consider punishments for crimes as a sort of state-sponsored revenge.
Justice is carried out by a disinterested third party (the state), revenge is not.
>notice how he dismisses Singapore for...reasons
My point wasn't that punishment doesn't deter crime (it clearly does), but that crime rates are far more dependent on social and economic factors.
Singapore and Scandinavia are quite similar in this regard (socially harmonious and prosperous, with a well educated lower class), even though they differ completely on attitudes towards crime and punishment. Both nations have low crime.
America and Brazil (for example) both have a poorly educated, struggling-to-survive underclass whose needs are broadly ignored by the rest of society. Both have high crime rates.
Give me a country with a despised underclass and low crime and I'll gladly concede.
My point wasn't that punishment doesn't deter crime (it clearly does), but that crime rates are far more dependent on social and economic factors.
Singapore and Scandinavia are quite similar in this regard (socially harmonious and prosperous, with a well educated lower class), even though they differ completely on attitudes towards crime and punishment. Both nations have low crime.
America and Brazil (for example) both have a poorly educated, struggling-to-survive underclass whose needs are broadly ignored by the rest of society. Both have high crime rates.
Give me a country with a despised underclass and low crime and I'll gladly concede.
>Give me a country with a despised underclass and low crime and I'll gladly concede.
Literally Singapore has a massive underclass of migrant workers from South Asia, who are given limited visas that don't allow them the rights of even a normal work visa. In 2020 hundreds of thousands of them were locked in tiny dormitories for over six months straight while covid spread like wildfire through them (the vast majority of Singapore's 60k covid cases were in migrant worker dormitories). Their salaries are less than $500/month.
Literally Singapore has a massive underclass of migrant workers from South Asia, who are given limited visas that don't allow them the rights of even a normal work visa. In 2020 hundreds of thousands of them were locked in tiny dormitories for over six months straight while covid spread like wildfire through them (the vast majority of Singapore's 60k covid cases were in migrant worker dormitories). Their salaries are less than $500/month.
Nope, they weren’t “locked in”. They were in fact moved out by the government into a large number of alternate accommodations ( hotels, schools, apartments, under construction sites, barges) to space people apart. Everyone was tested for free, hospitalised and treated for free. Neither workers nor employers were charged any fee. The workers have free wifi at their dorms now and a mobile app via which their report issues directly to the Ministry of Manpower.
I’m commenting only on “locked in” and not about their salaries, or other matters.
(Edit: replaced “work“ with “wifi”)
(Edit: replaced “work“ with “wifi”)
Most of them weren't allowed to roam freely in the community until around December/January, that's what I meant by locked in.
Roaming around has been highly discouraged in any case. Social distracting, limited table booking at restaurants, limited admissions to public places, group sizes at five, limits of how many can attend the office in person - all these were restrictions in place until a few months ago. The restrictions were replaced slightly a few weeks ago. With a recent upsurge, restrictions have been reintroduced.
There aren’t that many places for dorm workers to roam. The most popular place is Little India, where they can procure goods that they are familiar with. I do see dorm workers regularly buying provisions at the same neighbourhood stores that I go to.
There aren’t that many places for dorm workers to roam. The most popular place is Little India, where they can procure goods that they are familiar with. I do see dorm workers regularly buying provisions at the same neighbourhood stores that I go to.
> Give me a country with a despised underclass and low crime and I'll gladly concede.
China?
China?
China has a low rate of violent crime and shoplifting. But corruption is off the charts.
And China also executes more people than any other and has the harshest penalties for crime.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/04/china-must-co...
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2017/04/china-must-co...
Westerner: "Did you see that drug bust in Shanghai China yesterday? Two pounds of marijuana!".
Chinese National: "Yes. I hear they received 2 days."
Westerner: "2 days! That isn't that bad. You can do a lot more time in the states -- well at least in Texas. It's legal now on the entire west coast."
Chinese National: "No. No. 2 days to live."
Chinese National: "Yes. I hear they received 2 days."
Westerner: "2 days! That isn't that bad. You can do a lot more time in the states -- well at least in Texas. It's legal now on the entire west coast."
Chinese National: "No. No. 2 days to live."
Fair cop.
I’m not sure China fit the bill “despised under class”. It would seem to me that China’s (Han Chinese) underclass, at least in urban cities, have a lot more access to welfare, like the GP was saying about Singapore
In China, the underclass are literally second class citizens who risk being exiled from major cities should they get into trouble. Social services are not available to them.
Even with different values, there’s room for common ground.
For instance, you could both support programs to prevent people turning to crime (proactively), without changing the strictness of enforcement. Assuming they were effective, that would make progress on both the safety and social justice angles.
This is how you create effective change at scale - not focusing on the points where your values guarantee conflict, but finding approaches that can have broad support.
For instance, you could both support programs to prevent people turning to crime (proactively), without changing the strictness of enforcement. Assuming they were effective, that would make progress on both the safety and social justice angles.
This is how you create effective change at scale - not focusing on the points where your values guarantee conflict, but finding approaches that can have broad support.
"justice ... Empiricism fails us here, we're arguing over values."
Values can depend on descriptive background assumptions and in such cases value arguments can improve by making progress on factual topics. In the case of the justness of punishment: the topic of determinism. The recent discussion by Daniel Dennett and Greg Caruso in their book "Just Deserts - Debating Free Will" is a useful read.
Values can depend on descriptive background assumptions and in such cases value arguments can improve by making progress on factual topics. In the case of the justness of punishment: the topic of determinism. The recent discussion by Daniel Dennett and Greg Caruso in their book "Just Deserts - Debating Free Will" is a useful read.
If you learned that punishment produced no useful benefit to society, and you want to punish anyway, then what you’re seeking is revenge, not justice.
I would think the state is a very interested party
Crime rate is strongly related to poverty. Stronger punishments don't change that and in fact have the opposite affect. If we work on that we can make some progress.
The US has the largest prison population in the world by a large margin and we still have a relatively high crime rate overall, especially when it comes to violent crime. Putting more people in prison is not a solution to our problems as we can clearly see.
It really helps to look at the numbers to wrap your head around it, but here is a lot of good data to start understanding the issue. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
There is a lot of data and research out there regarding these issues, that's the good news. The bad news is that few people want to take the time to read it.
One more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-prisons-make-u...
The US has the largest prison population in the world by a large margin and we still have a relatively high crime rate overall, especially when it comes to violent crime. Putting more people in prison is not a solution to our problems as we can clearly see.
It really helps to look at the numbers to wrap your head around it, but here is a lot of good data to start understanding the issue. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html
There is a lot of data and research out there regarding these issues, that's the good news. The bad news is that few people want to take the time to read it.
One more: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-prisons-make-u...
[deleted]
The two approaches are not mutually exclusive
No one wants to put more people in jail.
I think poster is saying instead, policy should not encourage more criminals.
If you have X pool of existing law breakers, policy goal is to keep a % subset of X out of the prison system.
However, policy is increasing the size of X, to X+1.
No one wants to put more people in jail.
I think poster is saying instead, policy should not encourage more criminals.
If you have X pool of existing law breakers, policy goal is to keep a % subset of X out of the prison system.
However, policy is increasing the size of X, to X+1.
I don’t think there’s any evidence that most people agree with your perspective. Unless there is evidence, please don’t try to bolster your argument this way.
My question, then, is this: if punishing people for crimes was shown to be ineffective for society, you would continue to support punishment?
I think I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you are saying that you’d prefer to cut off your nose to spite your face. (Punish criminals despite punishment being a net negative.)
This isn’t to boost any particular flavor of justice. I am just curious about your perspective.
My question, then, is this: if punishing people for crimes was shown to be ineffective for society, you would continue to support punishment?
I think I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you are saying that you’d prefer to cut off your nose to spite your face. (Punish criminals despite punishment being a net negative.)
This isn’t to boost any particular flavor of justice. I am just curious about your perspective.
> My question, then, is this: if punishing people for crimes was shown to be ineffective for society, you would continue to support punishment?
> I think I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you are saying that you’d prefer to cut off your nose to spite your face. (Punish criminals despite punishment being a net negative.)
No, you're not misunderstanding. To me your question makes no sense. By definition, a society that does not punish criminals is no society I want to live in. It is uncivilized.
If you mean, "if punishing people for crimes increases the number of crimes, would you still support it?" then my answer is yes, of course (though I don't accept the premise). Reciprocity is part of human nature. If you do something bad, you deserve to be punished in porportion.
To the extent that we adopt your perspective, the value of human beings will be lost. When you punish a criminal, you are treating him with respect. You respect that he made a choice, you are showing that he didn't have to make that choice and that he could refrain from making it in the future, and that by accepting his punishment he can pay his debt. I believe that this perspective will result in less crime but even if it doesn't, I'm still in favor of it because justice is an end in itself.
> I think I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you are saying that you’d prefer to cut off your nose to spite your face. (Punish criminals despite punishment being a net negative.)
No, you're not misunderstanding. To me your question makes no sense. By definition, a society that does not punish criminals is no society I want to live in. It is uncivilized.
If you mean, "if punishing people for crimes increases the number of crimes, would you still support it?" then my answer is yes, of course (though I don't accept the premise). Reciprocity is part of human nature. If you do something bad, you deserve to be punished in porportion.
To the extent that we adopt your perspective, the value of human beings will be lost. When you punish a criminal, you are treating him with respect. You respect that he made a choice, you are showing that he didn't have to make that choice and that he could refrain from making it in the future, and that by accepting his punishment he can pay his debt. I believe that this perspective will result in less crime but even if it doesn't, I'm still in favor of it because justice is an end in itself.
To be clear, I didn't put forth my perspective, which is that crime and punishment and society is a very complex issue, and one that I'm not particularly well versed in. From what I do know, there are different theories of justice - utilitarian, retributive, justice, karmic, etc.
Drug laws might be an interesting litmus test. Their enforcement is pretty clearly bad for society, and causes all kinds of problems. Yet, because this health issue is mistakenly categorized as a moral failing, we all suffer the effects.
I'm curious to hear what you think about drug laws, especially in America.
Drug laws might be an interesting litmus test. Their enforcement is pretty clearly bad for society, and causes all kinds of problems. Yet, because this health issue is mistakenly categorized as a moral failing, we all suffer the effects.
I'm curious to hear what you think about drug laws, especially in America.
> To be clear, I didn't put forth my perspective, which is that crime and punishment and society is a very complex issue, and one that I'm not particularly well versed in. From what I do know, there are different theories of justice - utilitarian, retributive, justice, karmic, etc.
You did put forth your perspective.
> I think I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you are saying that you’d prefer to cut off your nose to spite your face. (Punish criminals despite punishment being a net negative.)
This is utilitarian thinking, period.
You did put forth your perspective.
> I think I must be misunderstanding. It sounds like you are saying that you’d prefer to cut off your nose to spite your face. (Punish criminals despite punishment being a net negative.)
This is utilitarian thinking, period.
"It sounds like you are saying" is a very different statement than "here is what I believe". For some reason, you want to project my beliefs on me - perhaps for the sake of an argument? Regardless, I don't think this is a fruitful thread for either of us.
> If you mean, "if punishing people for crimes increases the number of crimes, would you still support it?" then my answer is yes
As a thought experiment how many more murders per year would you accept as a cost of keeping "punishment-respect" around? 10? 1000? 100K? Limitless?
To me respect for others is primarily about caring, promoting health and reducing harm. To prevent someone from getting murdered is very respectful of them and their life. We can also show respect for all the choices a person will make in the future by adopting the policy that prevents them getting murdered today.
As a thought experiment how many more murders per year would you accept as a cost of keeping "punishment-respect" around? 10? 1000? 100K? Limitless?
To me respect for others is primarily about caring, promoting health and reducing harm. To prevent someone from getting murdered is very respectful of them and their life. We can also show respect for all the choices a person will make in the future by adopting the policy that prevents them getting murdered today.
> if there was "evidence" that not punishing murderers was the "best thing for society" (in terms of rehabilitation, crime rate, etc) would you support that policy?
Yes, if the "best thing .. in terms of .. crime rate" includes fewer murders. I prefer the package (fewer murders + higher percentage of murderers unpunished) over the package (more murders + lower percentage of murderers unpunished). Where unpunished does not mean "no reaction" but rather treatment, medication and rehabilitation.
Yes, if the "best thing .. in terms of .. crime rate" includes fewer murders. I prefer the package (fewer murders + higher percentage of murderers unpunished) over the package (more murders + lower percentage of murderers unpunished). Where unpunished does not mean "no reaction" but rather treatment, medication and rehabilitation.
Of course, this is a ration position to hold until yourself or someone you care about is the victim.
But you or someone you care about could become a murder victim in both packages. Indeed the likelihood for that unwanted outcome is higher in the second package. I prefer the policy alternative that lowers the risk of people being murdered.
What's interesting is we have a sort of 'natural experiment' in the US, where a significant fraction of the population in Minnesota, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, and the Dakotas, are descended from Scandinavians.
They have a very low crime rate, several times lower than the white average. There was a study on this, and Swedish-Americans and Norwegian-Americans commit crime at about the same rate as Swedes and Norwegians, which is to say, not often.
They have a very low crime rate, several times lower than the white average. There was a study on this, and Swedish-Americans and Norwegian-Americans commit crime at about the same rate as Swedes and Norwegians, which is to say, not often.
[deleted]
I've often theorized that what we call "American exceptionalism" (and similarly Canadian, Australian, and New Zealandese) is made up of the fact these countries are very heavily populated with early-generation, by-choice immigrants.
The population was effectively self-selected for those ambitious enough to emigrate, and in many areas, tame a new frontier and/or start businesses. They were then dumped in an environment highly supportive to it (cheap land and natural resources, rapid technical advancement providing huge vistas of economic opportunity) That probably has a significant ripple effect for a few generations. (The "Grandpa had to swim across the Atlantic and learn English and sweep floors to get started, so he's going to ride his kids to make sure they get the most of their education" pattern)
On the other hand, I suspect there's some toxic counterfactors in that; the celebration of bootstrap-pullers tends to encourage "I've got mine" attitudes and may end up underserving parts of the community that would benefit from more social support and community services.
The population was effectively self-selected for those ambitious enough to emigrate, and in many areas, tame a new frontier and/or start businesses. They were then dumped in an environment highly supportive to it (cheap land and natural resources, rapid technical advancement providing huge vistas of economic opportunity) That probably has a significant ripple effect for a few generations. (The "Grandpa had to swim across the Atlantic and learn English and sweep floors to get started, so he's going to ride his kids to make sure they get the most of their education" pattern)
On the other hand, I suspect there's some toxic counterfactors in that; the celebration of bootstrap-pullers tends to encourage "I've got mine" attitudes and may end up underserving parts of the community that would benefit from more social support and community services.
Not Australia. That was a penal colony.
I suspect there was a point where the immigrant mix turned by-choice though.
Not a historian, but I believe this wouldn't have been until either the good rush of post-war migration boom. Either way, several generations after the convicts first arrived.
I would really love a link to that paper. A quick google search didn't turn up what I was looking for.
I'm quite sure I'll never see it again. I save papers relevant to my profession and hobbies, and US crime statistics are neither.
I did manage to dredge this link up, which says that in 1973, Minnesota had the lowest high school drop-out rate in the nation, and the third-lowest crime after Iowa and Maine.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/08/12_cu...
Which is no smoking gun, but is suggestive. I'm sure someone could do a deep dive on academic literature in criminology and turn it up, but it won't be me I'm afraid.
I did manage to dredge this link up, which says that in 1973, Minnesota had the lowest high school drop-out rate in the nation, and the third-lowest crime after Iowa and Maine.
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2003/08/12_cu...
Which is no smoking gun, but is suggestive. I'm sure someone could do a deep dive on academic literature in criminology and turn it up, but it won't be me I'm afraid.
batguano(5)
There’s been a noticeable decline in rule of law and quality of life since prop 47 and prop 57 passed. I disagree. Many of these people are prolific criminals but there is no cash bail either so they are arrested, released, and then not put on trial for 6-9 months all the while committing more crimes and for the most part the DAs don’t even bother to prosecute.
Except in SF there's no "non-punitive methods of crime reduction". They just declared that it's OK to rob grocery stores or pharmacies, as long as you take less than a grand. At least that's what it looks on the ground - whatever the initial design was, both the criminals know they can steal with impunity, and the cops know it's no longer their business to catch the thieves. And so the thievery thrives, and the stores are collapsing under this assault. We may talk about Scandinavia all day but I don't think that's what is happening there. Whatever nice theory they had about it when proposing it, it is clear from the result that it is a complete failure if reducing crime were any of their goals.
Is there any evidence that being soft on crime has been effective at reducing crime or improving quality of life in San Francisco?
Our DAs promised “restorative justice” but in practice criminals get caught in released without consequences or rehabilitation. Is there evidence that this approach hasn’t emboldened organized criminals and contributed to the rise in property crime in recent years?
Our DAs promised “restorative justice” but in practice criminals get caught in released without consequences or rehabilitation. Is there evidence that this approach hasn’t emboldened organized criminals and contributed to the rise in property crime in recent years?
Is there any research that being tough on crime in San Francisco reduces crime or improves the quality of life?
The soft-on-crime approach taken over the last decade under Gascon and now Boudin coincided with San Francisco having highest property crime rate of any major US city.
Maybe that’s coincidence, but the onus is on those who brought us to this point: Where are the results that were promised? Where is the evidence that we should continue down this path, when by all metrics, it appears to be a disaster?
Maybe that’s coincidence, but the onus is on those who brought us to this point: Where are the results that were promised? Where is the evidence that we should continue down this path, when by all metrics, it appears to be a disaster?
> You look at jurisdictions that are "soft" on crime - Scandinavia, New Zealand etc. and invariably all of them have figured out non-punitive methods of crime reduction that are far more effective than jail.
You're assuming what works for X works for Y as well, without accounting for an insanely large difference between the culture in the United States and those countries. People are very different here, the education level, the moralities of the society, the concept of "I, me and myself first", the economic conditions, the violence, the mental health issues and many more things.
There is a reason why despite having liberal gun laws in Switzerland, there are way less mass shootings than the United States. But what works there won't work here.
You're assuming what works for X works for Y as well, without accounting for an insanely large difference between the culture in the United States and those countries. People are very different here, the education level, the moralities of the society, the concept of "I, me and myself first", the economic conditions, the violence, the mental health issues and many more things.
There is a reason why despite having liberal gun laws in Switzerland, there are way less mass shootings than the United States. But what works there won't work here.
Switzerland doesn't really have liberal gun laws. Ex-conscripts can keep their service weapon at home, but it's tightly regulated (ammos are sealed and aren't to be open except in case of need). You can't buy a gun in a supermarket the way you can in a Walmart in the US, or open/conceal carry a gun.
Gun ownership is high due to more or less half the population serving in the army, and the laws are probably more liberal than in neighbouring European countries, but you can't compare it in any way to the US.
Gun ownership is high due to more or less half the population serving in the army, and the laws are probably more liberal than in neighbouring European countries, but you can't compare it in any way to the US.
> The problem is that there's no real evidence that being tough on crime is a very effective way of solving the problem.
But this article was just arguing against your point. The crime enforcement laws were relaxed and the crime rose. It is obvious that allowing law enforcers to enforce the law reduces crime. Some people in SF are losing their jobs when the stores close you know? These crimes are not victimless.
But this article was just arguing against your point. The crime enforcement laws were relaxed and the crime rose. It is obvious that allowing law enforcers to enforce the law reduces crime. Some people in SF are losing their jobs when the stores close you know? These crimes are not victimless.
> The crime enforcement laws were relaxed and the crime rose.
A police officer claimed that technically.
I don't know that police officers are the best at making such correlations.
A police officer claimed that technically.
I don't know that police officers are the best at making such correlations.
Management says stop wasting time on testing, just write code and ship it no matter what. Tons of bugs start coming in for things that should have been caught by just trying to run the program.
But can you really trust the engineer who is telling you there is a correlation? What are her motives?
But can you really trust the engineer who is telling you there is a correlation? What are her motives?
I come from Norway in Scandinavia and I think you are confusing helping people rehabilitate with being soft on crime.
Norway is actually tough on shoplifting. It is not tolerated, and its mitigated by arrest and the police spend resources tracking down sales on online platforms etc. The government also track down the source of money/income that look suspicious, and have the means to do so due to widespread government oversight of all aspects of society.
Police will actually help shops or shopping centers remove non-rehabilitated people that have committed thefts in the past.
Norway is actually tough on shoplifting. It is not tolerated, and its mitigated by arrest and the police spend resources tracking down sales on online platforms etc. The government also track down the source of money/income that look suspicious, and have the means to do so due to widespread government oversight of all aspects of society.
Police will actually help shops or shopping centers remove non-rehabilitated people that have committed thefts in the past.
This is the main difference. We have relatively poor social safety nets in the US and no real regard for rehabilitation. We keep trying to put bandaids on a broken system and it just compounds the suffering.
It does, but the Norwegian system is not perfect. It does not work as a mitigation against Eastern European “theft tourists” that come to Norway to steal. This is because Norwegian jails pay inmates per day in addition to being setup for rehabilitation, so they are not a disincentive for “theft tourists” from very poor countries.
The Eastern European mafias take advantage of this and ship busses of thieves to Norway.
Basically, Norway system of rehabilitation assume strong borders so that you can limit how many you need to help and Schengens free flow of people from some poor Eastern European countries violate this assumption.
The Eastern European mafias take advantage of this and ship busses of thieves to Norway.
Basically, Norway system of rehabilitation assume strong borders so that you can limit how many you need to help and Schengens free flow of people from some poor Eastern European countries violate this assumption.
That makes sense. The tough part is that the real solution is uplifting Eastern European countries, but that's a huge challenge. In the short-term, is the cost of property theft worth creating a more draconian society? That's the absolute worst possible solution, imo.
To protect the capability to rehabilitate Norwegians the Norwegian people is struggling to find a way to stop this “theft tourism” as it does victimize people (private citizens through home breakins and businesses that already tax high to support socialism), and unfortunately the mitigations in some ways create a tougher society.
The solutions are tough trade offs: One of the solutions is to make deals with their country of origin to serve time in jails back home, tighter border control to stop “theft thieves” from entering and prohibiting begging again as the Eastern European mafia bring in beggars to serve as mules. Especially the one around begging feels culturally difficult and it makes people sad to have to prohibit begging again as it was legalized a couple of decades ago.
The solutions are tough trade offs: One of the solutions is to make deals with their country of origin to serve time in jails back home, tighter border control to stop “theft thieves” from entering and prohibiting begging again as the Eastern European mafia bring in beggars to serve as mules. Especially the one around begging feels culturally difficult and it makes people sad to have to prohibit begging again as it was legalized a couple of decades ago.
> This is because Norwegian jails pay inmates per day
Do they pay them more than typical software developer salary is in Eastern Europe? Asking for a friend.
Do they pay them more than typical software developer salary is in Eastern Europe? Asking for a friend.
Absolutely not, but that is a demographic that is better off working from Eastern Europe than pursing less noble means :D
"Tough on crime"/"soft on crime" are terms used in Australia, the UK and probably elsewhere to describe policies of prescribing harsh/lenient punishments. It's not about how effective the police are at stopping crime but what society feels is "right".
For that matter, UAE is doing equally well and have low crime rates with a policy that’s completely opposite of Scandinavia. UAE has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.
Hmmm then again, what proportion of crime against domestic staff goes unreported in the UAE would you say? 99%?
I have difficulty believing that a mais being taped by her employer in Dubai will ever go and make a police report
I have difficulty believing that a mais being taped by her employer in Dubai will ever go and make a police report
> "soft" on crime - Scandinavia,
Whats does it mean soft? Sweden has no parole you go straight to jail.
Whats does it mean soft? Sweden has no parole you go straight to jail.
You remind me of the infamous NYT headline, the the effect of “incarceration levels still high despite low crime”. facepalm
> invariably all of them have figured out non-punitive methods of crime reduction that are far more effective than jail
Well.. large segments of our populations commit very little crime. But when crime is committed, the police and the justice system are useless. Convicted for the 350th burglary? They'll be let out again and maybe be back tomorrow, if the prosecutor even bothers prosecuting them since it's pointless.
So DO look at us for crime prevention but NOT for managing crime when it happens.
Well.. large segments of our populations commit very little crime. But when crime is committed, the police and the justice system are useless. Convicted for the 350th burglary? They'll be let out again and maybe be back tomorrow, if the prosecutor even bothers prosecuting them since it's pointless.
So DO look at us for crime prevention but NOT for managing crime when it happens.
Personally I think there should be escalating punishments for crimes to avoid the "350th burglary" and I thought often history was taken into account but I don't know California or San Francisco's laws. So, first time caught shoplifting should be a fine, second should be community service, third some jail, fourth could be more jail, etc. That doesn't really address the danger involved in actually catching a shoplifter. You really just need more police or a way to recognize shoplifters (facial recognition?) at that point so that regular individuals don't have to become enforcers of the laws. It seems most of the tools that could be most effective are being banned or defunded in certain areas of the US. There should be ways to account for false positives, such as confirming a facial recognition software's results, that the person actually was in the area etc.
It's insane. I had my car broken into, fortunately I don't keep anything in it, so nothing was stolen, but when I called the cops, the basic response was initially along the lines of "Dude why are you even calling?" and when I persisted on filing an incident report, they begrudgingly filed it, but kept dropping hints that this is never even going to get looked at. I mean we have like 5 nest cams around the neighborhood, and plenty of shops also have cameras around, but I doubt they'll even try.
They won’t try because an arrest is pointless if the DA refuses to prosecute.
Elect a real DA who respects the law and law-abiding citizens, and the police will be able to do their jobs. Until then it’s a lost cause.
Elect a real DA who respects the law and law-abiding citizens, and the police will be able to do their jobs. Until then it’s a lost cause.
Hungry people will try to eat whatever they can. Tired people will try to sleep wherever they can. Unhappy people will try to feel better however they can.
Criminalizing these activities is incredibly costly and doesn't truly solve anything.
People are quick to question the morality of desperate unhappy poor people when they break the law when they don't have enough resources or options, and yet we rarely consider the immorality of those who hoard incredible wealth they don't need, when there are desperate unhappy poor people in need.
Shouldn't those with great power have the greater responsibility?
Criminalizing these activities is incredibly costly and doesn't truly solve anything.
People are quick to question the morality of desperate unhappy poor people when they break the law when they don't have enough resources or options, and yet we rarely consider the immorality of those who hoard incredible wealth they don't need, when there are desperate unhappy poor people in need.
Shouldn't those with great power have the greater responsibility?
There are many options to get fed in America, even if you don't have money. Here [1] is a list of food banks in SF.
[1] https://food-banks.org/assistance/san_francisco_ca.html
[1] https://food-banks.org/assistance/san_francisco_ca.html
And yet people still go hungry. It's a lot easier to feed yourself if you have money. Also not everybody has 5 and a half hours to wait in line.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/S-F-hunge...
https://www.sfchronicle.com/local-politics/article/S-F-hunge...
Are you saying that homeless and vagrants are too busy and it's much less time consuming to simply steal? Is that really a moral argument? You're that concerned about the productive time of homeless people?
See my answer above. As for my argument above that about comparative morality, it's more complex and nuanced, but it boils down to the idea of agency and praxis, and the responsibility of those who have everything they need.
Also a large number of people receiving food aid are neither homeless nor vagrants, but the working poor.
Also a large number of people receiving food aid are neither homeless nor vagrants, but the working poor.
In good faith, is the proposal here that long lines at food banks morally justify stealing?
No, I was responding to the idea that the existence at food banks means nobody needs to go hungry.
But I do think folks here have a lot of illusions about the nature of poverty and who is poor that they've gathered mostly by vague cultural osmosis and conservative propagated myths, not by working with or for poor folks, talking to those who do, academic studies (either doing, or reading), or even watching documentaries.
But I do think folks here have a lot of illusions about the nature of poverty and who is poor that they've gathered mostly by vague cultural osmosis and conservative propagated myths, not by working with or for poor folks, talking to those who do, academic studies (either doing, or reading), or even watching documentaries.
And what of the emotional and psychological effects victims of crime experience, doesn’t matter because they hold a job right?
Addicts will rob whatever they can.
This is my problem. I have video footage of a man walking out of his tent (that he is illegally camping in, btw) , walking across the street, coming to my car and removing the catalytic converter and then walking back to his tent. The police arrested him but had to release him when the Seattle city attorneys office refused to prosecute.
It won't do anything but make you feel better, but you could try bringing a civil case.
I think the expression in this case is "getting water from a stone" - what's the point in suing somebody who doesn't have anything to give you anyway?
It will do something. It will cost money and waste time.
Why live in a place like that? There's a flight of tech talent from these cities, and it's hard not to see why.
This is the correct answer. Why on earth would you live there? I spend 9 months/year in Sunnyvale, CA, about 40 miles south of SF. I refuse to go up there.
It takes way more investment to do what you're asking. Collecting the video, getting a warrant, tracking down the person, sending a team to arrest them, etc. How much does that all cost the city? Average cop makes over $50/hr in San Francisco. So it probably costs more than the loss typically?[1]
The problem in SF is that we've disbanded the team that tries to catch people in the act[2]. IIUC, it's both because there weren't enough resources and the DA won't prosecute anyway, so what's the point.
[1] - Maybe not in the case of a-rod: https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Half-million-in-lo...
[2] - https://www.sfweekly.com/news/authorities-hustle-to-curb-s-f...
The problem in SF is that we've disbanded the team that tries to catch people in the act[2]. IIUC, it's both because there weren't enough resources and the DA won't prosecute anyway, so what's the point.
[1] - Maybe not in the case of a-rod: https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/Half-million-in-lo...
[2] - https://www.sfweekly.com/news/authorities-hustle-to-curb-s-f...
Again, it's a service paid for by citizens taxes. It shouldn't matter they don't make enough money covering the "protect and serve" part of a non violent crime, that's the damn job. Raise the taxes, don't skip out on the duty you're paid to do.
And a service that was defunded across the country due to political pressure, I’m sure this doesn’t help either.
[deleted]
From the article,
>“We see a lot of repeat offenders.”
Sure if each criminal act was done by a different person, it probably would be expensive. In most cities, very small set of people are responsible for 99% of the crime. So if you book a single person, it will prevent multiple such incidents and bring down the cost and will be worthwhile. It's not a cost problem, it is a politics problem.
Besides doesn't matter how small the crime is. If tomorrow, if what the DA and the cops are are doing get written into law, ie, anything that is of less value than what costs us to prosecute is legal, the society will descend into chaos very quickly. Like why the hell am I paying for groceries?
>“We see a lot of repeat offenders.”
Sure if each criminal act was done by a different person, it probably would be expensive. In most cities, very small set of people are responsible for 99% of the crime. So if you book a single person, it will prevent multiple such incidents and bring down the cost and will be worthwhile. It's not a cost problem, it is a politics problem.
Besides doesn't matter how small the crime is. If tomorrow, if what the DA and the cops are are doing get written into law, ie, anything that is of less value than what costs us to prosecute is legal, the society will descend into chaos very quickly. Like why the hell am I paying for groceries?
Don't vote for Chesa, and recall him.
To most voters "a misdemeanor" is not equivalent to "totally legal" but yet that's how the police and district attorneys have chosen to treat it.
This is the most concerning aspect, why do police feel that only felonies are worth their time?
Because non-felons are back in store taking stuff before the officers can finish the arrest paperwork.
Repeat offenses don't escalate the charges in SF?
If it gets escalated, then it’s no longer a misdemeanor, and worth considering :-)
No, repeat misdemeanors of this sort don't escalate charges anywhere in California, since there is no law for that. And the SF DA certainly wouldn't care to escalate charges for repeat offenders even if he could.
They don't. Their hand cuffed by Prop 47 and the apt but misdirected antics of defund the police.
I suppose we can take this further and say prop 47 attempts to address symptoms because of a failure to agree on what the problems are (what problems should we be talking about).
My understanding of prop 47 reduced up charging and limited non violent theft to a misdemeanor offense. To my knowledge it doesn’t block enforcement of misdemeanor crimes.
I don't think they "feel" that way more as it is an economical decision. If you have more work coming in than you have allocated resources for, there are decisions that have to get made.
Summed up and very simplified obviously, but eh.
Summed up and very simplified obviously, but eh.
But the workload shouldn’t change - the same number of arrests and prosecutions can be made before and after the law is passed.
The police arrest, gather information, and pass the file to the prosecutor. If the prosecutor decides to drop the case, the police have no say.
If the police hand hundreds of cases to the prosecutor only to have the prosecutor refuse to pursue them, the police get the message.
If the police hand hundreds of cases to the prosecutor only to have the prosecutor refuse to pursue them, the police get the message.
Why doesn't the DA pursue these cases? San Francisco elects their DA. One could even imagine starting a recall campaign over a refusal to prosecute misdemeanors.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_San_Francisco_District_At...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_San_Francisco_District_At...
Years ago, I ran across the statement that democracy guarantees voters get the government they deserve. I didn’t take it seriously at the time, but I’ve come around. San Francisco will change when the voters insist on it, but I don’t expect that any time soon.
Each time I hear about this I'm baffled that not prosecuting is a legal option for DA.
How much intersection do you think there is between people who shoplift at CVS and people who have something to lose if they get a fine?
{personal Experience}
As a kid in California, we had constant break ins and other such vandalism. I was assaulted several times. 45 minutes for county sheriffs to arrive, as we had no police department. In a major urban center.
Sherif finally told my dad. “Nothing we can do, buy a gun, just make the body look like it wasn’t running away and police won’t make an issue of it”.
This horrified us on many levels.
We moved to a safe neighborhood. Later on we realized we had a bunch of gun nuts on street.
One of which loved to shoot blanks at trouble makers.
This disturbed me, and left me deeply questioning many things about guns.
As an adult I moved out of state to raise my family near the the pro gun people. Never once had an issue. Don’t like to touch guns personally. Yet happy to be where criminals fear to tread.
Sherif finally told my dad. “Nothing we can do, buy a gun, just make the body look like it wasn’t running away and police won’t make an issue of it”.
This horrified us on many levels.
We moved to a safe neighborhood. Later on we realized we had a bunch of gun nuts on street.
One of which loved to shoot blanks at trouble makers.
This disturbed me, and left me deeply questioning many things about guns.
As an adult I moved out of state to raise my family near the the pro gun people. Never once had an issue. Don’t like to touch guns personally. Yet happy to be where criminals fear to tread.
Also in the article:
> The hearing did not answer a crucial question: Why San Francisco? If the problem stems in part from a change in California law, why aren’t other cities in the state seeing similar spikes in shoplifting?
> The hearing did not answer a crucial question: Why San Francisco? If the problem stems in part from a change in California law, why aren’t other cities in the state seeing similar spikes in shoplifting?
Homeless people.
I really hate that term. It implies that they are under-served or lack the resources to be homed.
San Francisco's budget to address the problem is $106,500 per homeless individual, or enough to literally just buy them everything they need and send them to a trade school.
San Francisco's budget to address the problem is $106,500 per homeless individual, or enough to literally just buy them everything they need and send them to a trade school.
You used the term “homeless” after saying you hate it?
Just because the homeless-industrial complex has resources doesn’t mean the needy homeless do. The first job of non-profit work is to keep the thieves away, and municipal homeless programs often fail this first job miserably. Indeed they’re often shady operations covering graft, rent-seeking, and political favors cough, Seattle, cough
>Why San Francisco? If the problem stems in part from a change in California law, why aren’t other cities in the state seeing similar spikes in shoplifting?
Does Los Angeles count? Last I checked six months ago with LAPD Pacific Division most forms of crime were up, significantly. That was just listening to them take questions at the Venice Neighborhood Council meeting and looking at their reported crime stats documents. Solution: I moved out of LA.
Problem is, most of these types of petty crimes aren't reported because LAPD can't do anything. Plus, it's below the insurance deductible for most retailers. I speak from experience as a former retailer in LA (Culver City) on a major street, Sepulveda Blvd, for twelve years managing my own decent sized store.
I had tens of thousands stolen year after year. Even with video, I couldn't do anything. It's exceptionally difficult to catch and recover the money, so what's the point in trying, or even reporting it? It's a complete waste of time. I did my best with prevention, but even reveiwing videos to figure out what's happening takes a long time... And you need to know it's gone in the first place!
When you have $500k to $1mm in inventory, which really isn't much, and tons of product coming and going every day, how are you to keep up? Even with cycle counts, we were always behind the thefts.
I finally sold the shop in 2016 after a series of heart breaking thefts by employees, customers, and an electrician. Sure you can say it's my fault for not having a better system, and you're probably right. Still it takes honest employees and honest customers for it to work.
Prop 47 seems self fulfilling: Expand misdemeanors to cover twice as much product, so then less crimes are reported by the community, finally claim crime is down!
If technicalities were equivalent to reality this would be great policy, but it's different on the ground than what most people see from a report on their computer.
Does Los Angeles count? Last I checked six months ago with LAPD Pacific Division most forms of crime were up, significantly. That was just listening to them take questions at the Venice Neighborhood Council meeting and looking at their reported crime stats documents. Solution: I moved out of LA.
Problem is, most of these types of petty crimes aren't reported because LAPD can't do anything. Plus, it's below the insurance deductible for most retailers. I speak from experience as a former retailer in LA (Culver City) on a major street, Sepulveda Blvd, for twelve years managing my own decent sized store.
I had tens of thousands stolen year after year. Even with video, I couldn't do anything. It's exceptionally difficult to catch and recover the money, so what's the point in trying, or even reporting it? It's a complete waste of time. I did my best with prevention, but even reveiwing videos to figure out what's happening takes a long time... And you need to know it's gone in the first place!
When you have $500k to $1mm in inventory, which really isn't much, and tons of product coming and going every day, how are you to keep up? Even with cycle counts, we were always behind the thefts.
I finally sold the shop in 2016 after a series of heart breaking thefts by employees, customers, and an electrician. Sure you can say it's my fault for not having a better system, and you're probably right. Still it takes honest employees and honest customers for it to work.
Prop 47 seems self fulfilling: Expand misdemeanors to cover twice as much product, so then less crimes are reported by the community, finally claim crime is down!
If technicalities were equivalent to reality this would be great policy, but it's different on the ground than what most people see from a report on their computer.
Sorry for your losses forcing you to close up shop having grow up running a family owned business. Was this a liquor store? Why were employees and an electrician so brazenly stealing from you? How did they think they wouldn’t get caught eventually? Were you openly condemning the act of stealing to them and that you watch cameras and count the books regularly so accounting issues will be flagged and cameras will be watched and staff will be prosecuted?
The article itself disagrees with this assessment of cause and effect:
> The hearing did not answer a crucial question: Why San Francisco? If the problem stems in part from a change in California law, why aren’t other cities in the state seeing similar spikes in shoplifting?
> The hearing did not answer a crucial question: Why San Francisco? If the problem stems in part from a change in California law, why aren’t other cities in the state seeing similar spikes in shoplifting?
[deleted]
Agreed
Whenever we read about people antagonizing masks or vaccines and their usual political alignments let's remember this, because it's fundamentally the same thing
It's a "feel good" position, it's a "I'm in your tribe" position even if it makes no actual sense in reality (and both sides are not lacking in crap arguments to support those)
Whenever we read about people antagonizing masks or vaccines and their usual political alignments let's remember this, because it's fundamentally the same thing
It's a "feel good" position, it's a "I'm in your tribe" position even if it makes no actual sense in reality (and both sides are not lacking in crap arguments to support those)
> both sides
There’s not only 2 sides.
I stopped reading any news or social media (outside HN or stocks) since New Years. I don’t feel on a side anymore.
There’s not only 2 sides.
I stopped reading any news or social media (outside HN or stocks) since New Years. I don’t feel on a side anymore.
Agreed, reality is more nuanced than what exists in media/social media.
And you'll notice the extremes complain louder at those in the middle than at the "opposite side"
And you'll notice the extremes complain louder at those in the middle than at the "opposite side"
No, you missed the most important part. Before they stopped pursuing the theives they already were the target of organized crime. Their security guards were regularly assaulted.
The problem started long before the change in policy.
The problem started long before the change in policy.
> We're forgetting that they're still crimes
I don't think "we" (the people?) are forgetting they are still crimes. They are, and are supposed to be still prosecuted as the minor crimes they are.
The problem is that police and DAs have taken the position that if they can't go for bigger charges (which is what DAs like to put on their resume) then they won't pay any attention at all. That's the root cause of these lesser crimes being completely ignored.
I don't think "we" (the people?) are forgetting they are still crimes. They are, and are supposed to be still prosecuted as the minor crimes they are.
The problem is that police and DAs have taken the position that if they can't go for bigger charges (which is what DAs like to put on their resume) then they won't pay any attention at all. That's the root cause of these lesser crimes being completely ignored.
You missed a crucial part of the quote:
> The retail executives and police officers emphasized the role of organized crime in the thefts. And they told the supervisors that Proposition 47, the 2014 ballot measure that reclassified nonviolent thefts as misdemeanors if the stolen goods are worth less than $950, had emboldened thieves.
You are quoting the police and business owners, who are very much a biased source. How do they know what the causes are? Do you think they've commissioned a survey or done research? It's just as possible they were against Proposition 47 to begin with and the NYT is supporting their agenda for their own reasons.
> The retail executives and police officers emphasized the role of organized crime in the thefts. And they told the supervisors that Proposition 47, the 2014 ballot measure that reclassified nonviolent thefts as misdemeanors if the stolen goods are worth less than $950, had emboldened thieves.
You are quoting the police and business owners, who are very much a biased source. How do they know what the causes are? Do you think they've commissioned a survey or done research? It's just as possible they were against Proposition 47 to begin with and the NYT is supporting their agenda for their own reasons.
You must have missed the 8 million dollars in stolen merchandise they recently recovered from a retail theft ring here. You don't need a multi-year study to figure out that this shit is getting out of control.
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/10/06/major-san-franc...
https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2020/10/06/major-san-franc...
I feel if we had Godzilla invading the city and start ripping people apart there would be still people questioning "hey is it even Godzilla doing that? I'm not convinced by the evidence"
Followed by the inevitable interrogation of our past opinions of Godzilla, criticisms that Godzilla has needs too, and that our displeasure with Godzilla ripping people apart is evidence of our structural bias against and exploitation of Godzilla.
[deleted]
I'm planning to move to SF for a job. A friend told me to sign up for a neighborhood facebook group to one of the nicer neighborhoods in SF, Cole Valley, because I might see a message about a good place to rent. Cole Valley is a small neighborhood on the south east corner of Golden Gate Park.
In the 3 weeks I've been on the list 5 cars have had their windows busted and things stolen, 2 garages have been broken into and things stolen. 2 garages have had their doors damaged from attempted break-ins costing the owners hundreds to get fixed. There's been videos of people staking out places to rob (people walking from house to house inspecting garage door locks and trying to peak inside the garages). And ~10 or so posts about various other thefts or results of thefts.
This sounds more like one of those lawless 3rd world countries than a major city in a first world country. And worse, many people on the list just react as "that's life in a big city", no big deal.
It's not, having lived in Tokyo, Kyoto, and Singapore were property crime is extremely low. People get defensive whenever I bring this up, making excuses why crime needs to be high where they live. It doesn't.
In the 3 weeks I've been on the list 5 cars have had their windows busted and things stolen, 2 garages have been broken into and things stolen. 2 garages have had their doors damaged from attempted break-ins costing the owners hundreds to get fixed. There's been videos of people staking out places to rob (people walking from house to house inspecting garage door locks and trying to peak inside the garages). And ~10 or so posts about various other thefts or results of thefts.
This sounds more like one of those lawless 3rd world countries than a major city in a first world country. And worse, many people on the list just react as "that's life in a big city", no big deal.
It's not, having lived in Tokyo, Kyoto, and Singapore were property crime is extremely low. People get defensive whenever I bring this up, making excuses why crime needs to be high where they live. It doesn't.
If you want more of that type of news, make sure you install these apps:
* Ring
* Nextdoor
* Ring
* Nextdoor
Don't let the doom porn get to you. I lived in bernal for 5 years and never had a problem. Cole valley is right next to haight ashbury which attracts a fair amount characters. There's other neighborhoods that aren't in the middle of everything. Bernal heights, glen park, noe valley, pacific heights, the richmond and the sunset will be a little less crazy.
I think any American city will have some culture shock compared to Japan or Singapore. Just don't leave stuff out in the open, lock your stuff and maybe don't drive a prius, people like to steal the catalytic converters.
I think any American city will have some culture shock compared to Japan or Singapore. Just don't leave stuff out in the open, lock your stuff and maybe don't drive a prius, people like to steal the catalytic converters.
Perks of living on top of a giant hill.
No one wants to hike bernal to rob someone.
No one wants to hike bernal to rob someone.
I thought that, but in the last 6 months living at the top of golden gate heights, the number of garage and car break ins was crazy. Felt like one a day.
They’d case the block in broad daylight. I used to leave my car unlocked so at least there’d be no broken glass. Garage door openers were getting stolen and they’d come back to those houses later to empty out the garage. Cops never turned up when called.
Anyway we moved out of SF a month ago. No chance I’m paying that rent or mortgage in a city that won’t enforce its laws. Seattle’s been awesome so far.
They’d case the block in broad daylight. I used to leave my car unlocked so at least there’d be no broken glass. Garage door openers were getting stolen and they’d come back to those houses later to empty out the garage. Cops never turned up when called.
Anyway we moved out of SF a month ago. No chance I’m paying that rent or mortgage in a city that won’t enforce its laws. Seattle’s been awesome so far.
Wow. If you think Seattle is awesome SF must've been bad. Please come to lovely Bellevue sometime. Much cleaner and safer than Seattle.
Eh, we looked on the east side. To each their own, but it felt lacking to us. I spent a great decade in Northern New England before heading west for a career, and I'll probably end up back there one day, but I value the diversity and even a bit of the grit Seattle has. I don't live in Belltown, so I find the city to be pretty clean and safe.
This isn't a swipe at Bellevue, it's just not for us. That was probably a swipe at Belltown though :D
This isn't a swipe at Bellevue, it's just not for us. That was probably a swipe at Belltown though :D
> Seattle’s been awesome so far.
Seattle might be headed that way with our city council. Make sure to vote.
Seattle might be headed that way with our city council. Make sure to vote.
Let's make sure SF is the example of what not to do.
In order for that to happen, SF needs to be more progressive and more restorative justice.
If this actually works, then we would love to learn that lesson.
Don't stop yelling at police, your colleagues, and city leaders. Keep yelling, so they won't prosecute petty crimes.
In order for that to happen, SF needs to be more progressive and more restorative justice.
If this actually works, then we would love to learn that lesson.
Don't stop yelling at police, your colleagues, and city leaders. Keep yelling, so they won't prosecute petty crimes.
This is true in southwest portland as well.
I can think of like 5 different cities in Mexico that are safer than SF. Merida might top the list.
Californians should be ashamed but they continuously vote for this shit.
Californians should be ashamed but they continuously vote for this shit.
In bernal heights, someone smashed my window and stole my camera out of the back seat of my car while I was in the car. It was quite traumatizing, and I don't really like going to San Francisco anymore. (They knew we were in the car, but went for it anyways. Pretty brazen, and they got away with it.)
Sure the point is, people who experience these things are going to talk about and make it seem like it happens all the time. Everyone who has nothing to say is quiet so it can seem like nothing good happens
You are making it sound like it’s normal to have your car broken in, and the only difference is rate.
This is not the case. In many places, you can leave car unlocked for years, and no one is going to steal stuff from it.
Under those circumstances, even one case is a reasonable evidence that the crime situation is bad. And here we have an evidence of much more than one case.
This is not the case. In many places, you can leave car unlocked for years, and no one is going to steal stuff from it.
Under those circumstances, even one case is a reasonable evidence that the crime situation is bad. And here we have an evidence of much more than one case.
I mean stuff gets broken into all the time. Unless your talking small town suburbs and rural areas. That doesn't seem fair to compare to a city. Your all making it sound like if you park in sf it's guaranteed your windows will be broken. It might feel like that if you only look at all the negative things people say.
And this won't be prosecuted as an armed robbery, if they even bothered to catch the perpetrator, even though it was.
> Just don't leave stuff out in the open, lock your stuff and maybe don't drive a prius, people like to steal the catalytic converters.
IME this is becoming an increasingly common attitude in many cities besides SF. And it’s a problem of social decay - fear of being considered an asshole by calling some behaviors just unacceptable. Americans are (somewhat ironically) terrified of being perceived as assholes, and we’re letting our social standards erode more and more each decade.
We don’t have to relent to this. Expecting to be able to leave something out and it not be stolen is not unreasonable. Expecting not to be assaulted is reasonable. Expecting people to not shoplift is a reasonable expectation in any civilized society.
IME this is becoming an increasingly common attitude in many cities besides SF. And it’s a problem of social decay - fear of being considered an asshole by calling some behaviors just unacceptable. Americans are (somewhat ironically) terrified of being perceived as assholes, and we’re letting our social standards erode more and more each decade.
We don’t have to relent to this. Expecting to be able to leave something out and it not be stolen is not unreasonable. Expecting not to be assaulted is reasonable. Expecting people to not shoplift is a reasonable expectation in any civilized society.
For almost 30 years I've done that in US, suburbs and big cities.
[deleted]
Living near Boston I can tell you we often leave stuff outside, like a Weber grill, strollers, kid bikes and scooters, etc. If it's something expensive like my $1500 bike we do lock it even in the basement. It's been years and nothing was stolen. I know bikes are stolen in the neighborhood, but that mostly cases where people left their bikes unlocked in their yard for a while.
What I'm trying to say is that there are major US cities that are relatively safe. Fortunately not every city in the US has been following the CA politics.
What I'm trying to say is that there are major US cities that are relatively safe. Fortunately not every city in the US has been following the CA politics.
Isn't "living near Boston" the key part here? You can live near sf and live in really quiet areas. Right next to sf is Daly city, pretty quiet, you can go across the bridge to Marin, near sf extremely different life style. 20 min to the south is a quiet beach town, half moon bay. You can live only near sf and have the same experience your talking about
> Just don't leave stuff out in the open, lock your stuff and maybe don't drive a prius, people like to steal the catalytic converters.
These are not things you should have to do in a sane first-world country
These are not things you should have to do in a sane first-world country
No, this is not more like one of those lawless third world countries. I don't understand how some people have such little life experience to make these sorts of comments.
There aren't exactly many cars to be broken into in lawless third world countries, there aren't many garages with things in them to be broken into along with said things stolen in lawless third world countries, and there aren't many garages with doors to be damaged in lawless third world countries.
Like, come on.
There aren't exactly many cars to be broken into in lawless third world countries, there aren't many garages with things in them to be broken into along with said things stolen in lawless third world countries, and there aren't many garages with doors to be damaged in lawless third world countries.
Like, come on.
Screw anecdata. Here are some statistics/resources.
SF Chronicle (an SF based newspaper) tracks break-ins in SF [0]. Here is a more general crime dashboard as well [1]. For reference, here are some statistics in Chicago [2].
YTD, SF has had 8500 property theft cases. Chicago-- 3000. Per crime capita, SF is astronomical.
Many people don't have cars in SF for this exact reason.
Other commenters are right that it varies slightly by neighborhood (e.g. cars in Russian Hill/Cole Valley are by far more touristy than others), but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/sf-car-breakins/
[1] https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crim...
[2] https://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/1_PDFsam_C...
SF Chronicle (an SF based newspaper) tracks break-ins in SF [0]. Here is a more general crime dashboard as well [1]. For reference, here are some statistics in Chicago [2].
YTD, SF has had 8500 property theft cases. Chicago-- 3000. Per crime capita, SF is astronomical.
Many people don't have cars in SF for this exact reason.
Other commenters are right that it varies slightly by neighborhood (e.g. cars in Russian Hill/Cole Valley are by far more touristy than others), but that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.
[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/sf-car-breakins/
[1] https://www.sanfranciscopolice.org/stay-safe/crime-data/crim...
[2] https://home.chicagopolice.org/wp-content/uploads/1_PDFsam_C...
How does violent crime compare?
It's really not that bad. If you go looking for something, you are going to find it, which is exactly what you did by going to the neighborhood fb group. I've lived in potrero hill and lower Haight for over three years and only have and some packages stolen, and I lived right next to the projects when in potrero.
This "crime problem" has little to no effect on my daily life, other than needing to press a button so an attendant can unlock the shampoo cabinet when I'm at CVS every other month.
This "crime problem" has little to no effect on my daily life, other than needing to press a button so an attendant can unlock the shampoo cabinet when I'm at CVS every other month.
Neighborhood FB groups in low crime places don't have people posting about actual crime. It's usually either social stuff, or posts by Karens about random "suspicious looking" people.
I live in a very low crime area, my neighbor regularly leaves her garage door open (I guess out of convenience?) and her garage is full of extremely valuable items, nobody ever takes anything. My neighborhood FB group is almost exclusively people asking for recommendations, I've never seen a post about crime.
> which is exactly what you did by going to the neighborhood fb group
Is it uncommon to have a neighborhood fb group that's just full of old people posting that it looks like it might rain and people trying to offload extra rhubarb from their garden?
Is it uncommon to have a neighborhood fb group that's just full of old people posting that it looks like it might rain and people trying to offload extra rhubarb from their garden?
I lived in San Franciso for a few years (2010 to 2015) and hung around with some of the "low class" people, and this theft spike doesn't surprise me at all. It was already astronomical while I was there.
San Francisco is a strange place, where the only places you're allowed to be poor are in the tenderloin, 6th and market, or the projects. It's the only place I've lived where I regularly had to dodge human excrement on the sidewalks, car windows are all smashed, deodorant is locked down in the stores etc.
The poor don't consider themselves of the same people as the rich. The infrastructure is not for the poor, the police are not for the poor, the parks and sidewalks and houses and cars are not for the poor. Hell, while I lived there the poor weren't even allowed to sit or lie down! So why should they feel any civic pride or duty or identification at all? It's like some sort of Elysium and Deponia. The Elysians are so far removed from reality that crimes against them are hardly crimes at all as far as the poor are concerned. They'll never taste of the good things Elysium has, so why even care? Better to just grab whatever you can from them and try to eke out whatever existence you're able to. It's similar in many ways to the bandit camps and highwaymen of the Roman era.
I've traveled and lived in many places, and this sort of behavior only happens when there's massive inequality, tempered a small amount by the severity of the law.
I know this will get downvoted to hell because almost everyone on HN is rich, so they're blind to this. For you, the answer is better policing and stronger laws, because those are the only things that can help keep you separated from the rest unless you're rich enough to afford private security.
San Francisco is a strange place, where the only places you're allowed to be poor are in the tenderloin, 6th and market, or the projects. It's the only place I've lived where I regularly had to dodge human excrement on the sidewalks, car windows are all smashed, deodorant is locked down in the stores etc.
The poor don't consider themselves of the same people as the rich. The infrastructure is not for the poor, the police are not for the poor, the parks and sidewalks and houses and cars are not for the poor. Hell, while I lived there the poor weren't even allowed to sit or lie down! So why should they feel any civic pride or duty or identification at all? It's like some sort of Elysium and Deponia. The Elysians are so far removed from reality that crimes against them are hardly crimes at all as far as the poor are concerned. They'll never taste of the good things Elysium has, so why even care? Better to just grab whatever you can from them and try to eke out whatever existence you're able to. It's similar in many ways to the bandit camps and highwaymen of the Roman era.
I've traveled and lived in many places, and this sort of behavior only happens when there's massive inequality, tempered a small amount by the severity of the law.
I know this will get downvoted to hell because almost everyone on HN is rich, so they're blind to this. For you, the answer is better policing and stronger laws, because those are the only things that can help keep you separated from the rest unless you're rich enough to afford private security.
This doesn't happen in wealthy cities like Irvine, or even large cities like Boston or NYC. This is an SF phenomenon.
Add Seattle and Portland to the list.
This is a west coast phenomenon largely driven by IMO west coast policies.
This is a west coast phenomenon largely driven by IMO west coast policies.
Some of it is also due to west coast weather being temperate.
You can’t really compare it to Irvine, which is almost completely suburban and has 1/15th the population.
Which is why I included other large cities as an example. Although I would argue the density in SF is not that much higher than some parts of Irvine due to restrictive zoning in SF.
[deleted]
Yes, it’s a bit like saying, “My favorite colors are blue, green, and a potato”.
But a potato is not a color!
“Which is why I included blue and green.”
But a potato is not a color!
“Which is why I included blue and green.”
[deleted]
Symptoms of a national issue. I used to live in Chicago and homelessness was through the roof as well.
Doesn't cut for me. Because other people have more doesn't mean you can act anti social, just like I don't tolerate incel tier thoughts, despite understanding for some people it very well might be impossible to meet partners.
And that's precisely the attitude that perpetuates the system.
Oh, right, because poor people outside SF feel like they're one step away from living the good life. It's only in SF that people feel forever locked out of the pleasure dome.
IDK, I think it's because SF was heavily influenced by freak culture in the 60s and while that mode of thinking died out in the rest of the world it found refuge in NorCal. NorCal has, since the 60s, been a bastion of drugs and freakiness. The culture behind that tolerated a crime society because of the disdain for law and order, with its authoritarian, conservative, anti-drug values. They were more naive than, say, New York liberals who knew you couldn't just let people do whatever they wanted.
IDK, I think it's because SF was heavily influenced by freak culture in the 60s and while that mode of thinking died out in the rest of the world it found refuge in NorCal. NorCal has, since the 60s, been a bastion of drugs and freakiness. The culture behind that tolerated a crime society because of the disdain for law and order, with its authoritarian, conservative, anti-drug values. They were more naive than, say, New York liberals who knew you couldn't just let people do whatever they wanted.
Once upon a time, when friends or acquaintances would complain about judgementalism, I’d tell them that to judge is normal and natural, that we as human beings are equipped with judgement for a very good reason, and that they truly would not want to live in a judgement-free society.
Today, they can live in San Francisco.
Today, they can live in San Francisco.
There are many, many videos like this: https://youtu.be/arss9V3A1VA?t=44
Warning, there is nothing NSFW, but it's just sickening to watch.
Warning, there is nothing NSFW, but it's just sickening to watch.
> here are many, many videos like this: https://youtu.be/arss9V3A1VA?t=44
That's brazen. Some of the shoplifters were even wearing masks, but pulled them down to their chins.
That's brazen. Some of the shoplifters were even wearing masks, but pulled them down to their chins.
It makes me wonder, what the owner could do in that environment to prevent such theft, ie in the circumstances where the police cannot be bothered. I wonder if making extremely loud, directed noise to cause a discomfort for thieves is legal or effective.
They close down. Obviously you can't operate a retail store if that type of conduct is permitted.
Either that or they lock up all the merchandise and don't unlock it until the customer pays.
I was in downtown SF, in the Financial District. There’s a Walgreens there, run by a group of older Asian ladies.
A guy came in and started grabbing things from the shelf, and putting them in his bag.
The ladies started shouting “Thief! Shame! Shame! Shame!”
The guy left quickly.
A guy came in and started grabbing things from the shelf, and putting them in his bag.
The ladies started shouting “Thief! Shame! Shame! Shame!”
The guy left quickly.
Did he leave with the stuff? Because if he took the stuff in his bag with him when he left, that doesn't really seem like a win.
He stopped filling his bag and walked out.
I don’t know if he was “done.” A lot of people were looking at him, and he was being screamed at.
I don’t know if he was “done.” A lot of people were looking at him, and he was being screamed at.
In fact they sell these noise makers, they're called BoomSticks and they also launch lethal projectiles.
In most (all?) US localities, you can't legally shoot someone for stealing stuff from your store.
You generally can't shot them right off the bat, but in most places you can use non-deadly force to defend property, and if the thief responds by threatening you with death or great bodily harm, you can then use deadly force.
In some states, if you reasonably fear that using non-deadly force to stop someone from committing arson, burglary, robbery, or felonious property destruction would put you in danger of serious bodily harm, you can skip straight to deadly force.
Here's a summary from Eugene Volokh [1].
[1] https://reason.com/volokh/2020/06/02/are-people-allowed-to-u...
In some states, if you reasonably fear that using non-deadly force to stop someone from committing arson, burglary, robbery, or felonious property destruction would put you in danger of serious bodily harm, you can skip straight to deadly force.
Here's a summary from Eugene Volokh [1].
[1] https://reason.com/volokh/2020/06/02/are-people-allowed-to-u...
Thanks for posting something actually written by a lawyer.
That's good! Deadly force should only be used to prevent serious physical harm. It should be pretty easy to trace those people and put them in jail. But I'm sure the SF police didn't even bother.
Unfortunately it's less about the police not bothering and more about the DA not bothering.
See https://stanfordreview.org/chesa-boudin-san-francisco-crime/
See https://stanfordreview.org/chesa-boudin-san-francisco-crime/
Does SF prosecute petty theft? In Seattle we mostly don't, and haven't for years. As a result, there's usually not much point for police to put petty thieves in jail.
I'm not even sure they investigate/prosecute class C felony theft here much anymore. Above $5,000 stolen (class B felony theft), and then maybe there's a case.
I'm not even sure they investigate/prosecute class C felony theft here much anymore. Above $5,000 stolen (class B felony theft), and then maybe there's a case.
I think it's a misdemeanor here.
[deleted]
Yes this is called anarcho-tyranny.
It’s a CVS, they can decide to close that store if they want and it would be fine for them. The real issue is for small shops or for the employees who have to deal with this kind of bs. I live in SF and I avoid downtown and convenient stores for this exact reason. And Don’t tell me about public transport.
The real issue is for the people who need to or would like to live near a pharmacy/convenience store.
I'm wondering why the employees (especially the one in red) are putting themselves into physical danger over a $100B corporation's cosmetic supplies. Why even get involved? Just get physically away from them and start writing the paperwork. Isn't this what insurance is for?
Years and years ago I worked at a store where the official policy was don't confront shoplifters or try to stop them - they'd rather lose to merchandise than risk someone getting hurt plus it's a liability issue.
How about a snare or a net trap? They're non-lethal and restrain people until the authorities arrive. (Obviously I'm joking.)
[deleted]
You pay other criminals for enforcement, thus entrenching a crime culture.
[deleted]
Crikey. I see audacious shoplifting in London, but not like that.
wow, savage.
Wow, it is this blatant these days. This is just crazy.
[deleted]
If you watch the video to the end, you see how it escalates from shoplifting to violence when the thief doesn't get his way - essentially he doesn't know the word "respect" beyond "I demand you respect me", even in the midst of a robbery.
Having seen similar shoplifting incidents around SF, I feel bad for the security guards. They're not allowed to physically stop thieves at larger chains, but they're expected to follow and hinder them. It's a very tough job, ad prone to injury.
It's fascinating to watch the change in behavior when the "security guard" flashes his SF Police badge and says, "Actually, I'm a real cop." Then the thief drops everything, stops mouthing off, and heads for the door..
Having seen similar shoplifting incidents around SF, I feel bad for the security guards. They're not allowed to physically stop thieves at larger chains, but they're expected to follow and hinder them. It's a very tough job, ad prone to injury.
It's fascinating to watch the change in behavior when the "security guard" flashes his SF Police badge and says, "Actually, I'm a real cop." Then the thief drops everything, stops mouthing off, and heads for the door..
dicomdan(3)
And the solution that many stores have been doing is to put basic cheap items behind a lock and key.
The last time I went to a Walgreens I needed to buy:
1. Mouth wash
2. Tooth paste
3. Shaving cream
I had to drag some poor employee over for all three items to either unlock a lock, or go into the back to find the item because they only had a display box.
Another time I went and I couldn't find anyone with a key. The person behind the counter said they didn't have one and they didn't know where the person with the key went. After waiting around for a few minutes I left to go to the Safeway nearby to try there instead. Only to find the item I needed was also locked down. I gave up. No one wanted my money.
I just drive out of the city to do my shopping now. It's a much better experience.
The last time I went to a Walgreens I needed to buy:
1. Mouth wash
2. Tooth paste
3. Shaving cream
I had to drag some poor employee over for all three items to either unlock a lock, or go into the back to find the item because they only had a display box.
Another time I went and I couldn't find anyone with a key. The person behind the counter said they didn't have one and they didn't know where the person with the key went. After waiting around for a few minutes I left to go to the Safeway nearby to try there instead. Only to find the item I needed was also locked down. I gave up. No one wanted my money.
I just drive out of the city to do my shopping now. It's a much better experience.
Walgreens have started to respond by closing stores. Good on them. No one can survive with widespread unmitigated and unprosecuted shoplifting.
Once shops start closing down, people will ask and complain why stores don’t exist in their neighborhoods, or they’re too expensive but low quality. It’s cost of doing business.
‘Cheesy Pudding’, the DA, is high on the list of everyone’s favorite target for a recall, but sadly, I think most people won’t bother with the recall effort and the downward spiral will continue.
Some of the people who espouse these policies see Marxism as an example but Marxism would never ever put up with rampant delinquency.
Once shops start closing down, people will ask and complain why stores don’t exist in their neighborhoods, or they’re too expensive but low quality. It’s cost of doing business.
‘Cheesy Pudding’, the DA, is high on the list of everyone’s favorite target for a recall, but sadly, I think most people won’t bother with the recall effort and the downward spiral will continue.
Some of the people who espouse these policies see Marxism as an example but Marxism would never ever put up with rampant delinquency.
>Once shops start closing down, people will ask and complain why stores don’t exist in their neighborhoods, or they’re too expensive but low quality.
And the answer by the people who implemented this policy will, no doubt, be “institutional racism” by walgreens…
And the answer by the people who implemented this policy will, no doubt, be “institutional racism” by walgreens…
The problem in SF is peculiar. Lots of the crime isn't by locals, but by opportunists from San Mateo or Alameda, etc., they’re not dumb. They know San Mateo county does not play the same game as SF, so they come in and go unimpeded.
The useless SF DA is at great fault here. The cops don’t want to spin their wheels when they know anything below ~$950 doesn’t get prosecuted. And in addition the DA, having felon parents, has a soft spot for criminals. SF bought that whole sale because voters have been made believe the way to turn criminals into productive members of society is to say, “pretty please” and they believe they just haven’t said please nicely enough. Well here we are now.
The useless SF DA is at great fault here. The cops don’t want to spin their wheels when they know anything below ~$950 doesn’t get prosecuted. And in addition the DA, having felon parents, has a soft spot for criminals. SF bought that whole sale because voters have been made believe the way to turn criminals into productive members of society is to say, “pretty please” and they believe they just haven’t said please nicely enough. Well here we are now.
The ideal scenario here is to make petty theft impossible, either via amazon go (adding some cubicle thing that doesn't let you enter without scanning your amazon account) or via some huge inventory system that only dispenses/unlocks items when you pay for them - but I doubt/wonder if this is even a thing, or if it's being worked on by some SF startup. Another option is that these stores shut down, everyone gets package lockers for their homes, and they buy everything, including groceries, via Amazon. Not the best state of the world.
Don't forget "food deserts"!
What are you talking about? Do you believe that impoverished neighborhoods which are underserved by grocery stores ("food deserts", a real phenomenon) drove them away because residents shoplifted from them too much, or something?
In Emeryville (across the Bay Bridge from San Francisco), there is a Pak N Save supermarket that underwent a significant remodeling/rearrangement a couple of years ago. One of the major changes was that all the alcohol, cosmetics, and personal hygiene supplies were moved to a separate section of the store with a supervised "choke point" through which customers had to enter/exit.
I asked the management why they did this, because it was chronically understaffed, and required customers effectively check out twice if they were buying items from this section and the rest of the grocery store. Their response was that it was the only practical option to keep the store open, because otherwise, the amount of shoplifting taking place was going to render the location unprofitable.
So yes, this is a very real possibility.
I asked the management why they did this, because it was chronically understaffed, and required customers effectively check out twice if they were buying items from this section and the rest of the grocery store. Their response was that it was the only practical option to keep the store open, because otherwise, the amount of shoplifting taking place was going to render the location unprofitable.
So yes, this is a very real possibility.
It's happening here where I live - we have a locally owned grocery store has had to reduce hours, post a guard, and now is considering closing because of rampant shoplifting.
[deleted]
Not sure if you were being sarcastic, but as someone with friends in the corporate side of a large grocery chain (guess which one from my username), this is absolutely a reason food deserts exist. The finances for them just don’t work.
Partly. It's also a lack of demand for decent food. It's not like Krogers (etc) is part of some conspiracy to not sell produce to poor people. That's what the media seems to think, but I don't think so.
This is correct. Not only are grocery store profit margins razor thin in a general sense, they're thinnest for packaged food found on the shelves in the middle of the store. The biggest margins are in seafood, meat counter, bakery, and produce—the ones more privileged people frequent more often, and poor people less. If the store is in a zip code where poverty is rampant, packaged, canned, and boxed food starts looking a lot like a cost center from a business perspective.
This isn't directly related to shoplifting and theft since the high priced items are usually behind the counter, but if you are a grocery chain with hundreds of stores the poorly performing ones are always going to be closed first. And those are almost always in urban, crime-ridden areas.
[Source: worked as a supermarket cashier as a teenager.]
This isn't directly related to shoplifting and theft since the high priced items are usually behind the counter, but if you are a grocery chain with hundreds of stores the poorly performing ones are always going to be closed first. And those are almost always in urban, crime-ridden areas.
[Source: worked as a supermarket cashier as a teenager.]
The same thing is happening in Seattle. For example an Asian grocery store here filed nearly 600 police reports in a 1.5 year period, in addition to all the incidents they never reported (https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/repeat-shoplifters-continue...). As the article notes, drugstores have also begun closing locations. The only grocery store in the downtown core also closed (https://thepostmillennial.com/downtown-seattle-loses-its-onl...) - the shoplifting was bad enough but that compounded with rioting and COVID was too much for them to stay in business.
Marx referred to such delinquents as the lumpenproletariat, an: "essentially parasitical group [that] was largely the remains of older, obsolete stages of social development, and that it could not normally play a progressive role in history. Indeed, because it acted only out of socially ignorant self-interest, the lumpenproletariat was easily bribed by reactionary forces and could be used to combat the true proletariat in its efforts to bring about the end of bourgeois society. Without a clear class-consciousness, the lumpenproletariat could not play a positive role in society. Instead, it exploited society for its own ends, and was in turn exploited as a tool of destruction and reaction."
> Marxism would never ever put up with rampant delinquency
Once in control, yes, Marxists would not allow rampant delinquency. But until that day file this under "by any means necessary".
Once in control, yes, Marxists would not allow rampant delinquency. But until that day file this under "by any means necessary".
Well, yes, of course, and you're right. It's just so ironic and I think these idealists really never read Lenin or if they did they just ignored the bad parts. It's kinda delusional.
They’d be called consumerist capitalist destabilizers, counterrevolutionaries who are undermining the people's revolution, etc., etc, get their houses marked, harassed and taken to the klink.
They’d be called consumerist capitalist destabilizers, counterrevolutionaries who are undermining the people's revolution, etc., etc, get their houses marked, harassed and taken to the klink.
In Eastern Europe under communism, you would be thrown in jail if you did not work. The official name of this crime was "parasitism", as you were not contributing to society - this happened to an uncle of mine who had to serve one summer of hard labor for not finding work fast enough after graduating. That ticket that said you had a job and showed up each day was a life and death thing. It also famously happend to Joseph Brodsky -- sentenced to five years hard labor for parasitism when the authorities decided that being a poet did not constitute gainful labor.
Also, if you missed a day of work, you better have a doctor's note. I once asked my parents what happened if you just didn't show up to work for a day and didn't have a doctor's note, and she looked at me and said "I don't think anyone dared to do that." Imagine being thrown in jail for calling in sick but not having a doctor's note to show your employer.
Of course crimes like theft were punished a lot more severely than in the West, and the result was indeed very little of that type of crime. Of course having an extensive network of secret police and informants everywhere helped with that. But that's the difference between being the revolutionary trying to overthrow capitalism and being the nomenklatura trying to keep the shelves stocked once capitalism has been overthrown.
Also, if you missed a day of work, you better have a doctor's note. I once asked my parents what happened if you just didn't show up to work for a day and didn't have a doctor's note, and she looked at me and said "I don't think anyone dared to do that." Imagine being thrown in jail for calling in sick but not having a doctor's note to show your employer.
Of course crimes like theft were punished a lot more severely than in the West, and the result was indeed very little of that type of crime. Of course having an extensive network of secret police and informants everywhere helped with that. But that's the difference between being the revolutionary trying to overthrow capitalism and being the nomenklatura trying to keep the shelves stocked once capitalism has been overthrown.
No, Marxists utilize thieves as a resource. They can be mobilized to destabilize social cohesion wherever signs of organized resistance appear.
I think it is a point of historical interest that Stalin was a bank robber at one point, with his takings being used to fuel the revolution in Russia.
https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/joseph-stalin-was-ru...
(I'm not suggesting that these thieves are a part of a revolution of any kind)
https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/joseph-stalin-was-ru...
(I'm not suggesting that these thieves are a part of a revolution of any kind)
The Walgreens near where I life (Bush and Fillmore) has a padlock on the red bull fridge. It was pretty shocking to get back from spending awhile in Korea where convenience stores are plentiful, 24/7, and fast to find this new development.
Please don’t chalk me up as some kind of Marxist activist, but: that padlock probably says a lot about the addictive nature, pricing, and perhaps engineered scarcity of Red Bull.
This would be a compelling point, if the shampoo wasn't also under padlock.
What's frequently under lock and key isn't items thieves themselves want, but items that are easy to fence. A lot of people have no objection to buying say unopened, brand name, but obviously stolen laundry detergent for pennies on the dollar.
> This would be a compelling point, if the shampoo wasn't also under padlock.
Maybe the shampoo is really as appealing as the advertisements suggest.
Maybe the shampoo is really as appealing as the advertisements suggest.
[deleted]
I used to live right near Union Square in SF (the heart of downtown). Police are prevented from enforcing laws because of the constant backlash and outrage from the very vocal, but minority of people. I never understood this ideology of anti-police and laws that seems to permeate the bay area. Eventually after 5+ years I decided I'd had enough and moved out of SF and California for greener pastures and couldn't be happier. "You reap what you sow."
To the point that Fremont PD had to bust a crime ring operating out of SF, the politics there is ridiculous at this point. Also moved out a few years ago.
Late to the party, but I just saw a FB update from a (liberal, anti-cop) friend in SF who is flabbergasted that, in her words, "downtown SF doesn't exist" now, and all shops are boarded up or empty except for Swarovski and Skechers, and the smell of urine is much stronger.
[deleted]
Also moved, don’t see myself going back
Eventually shops in eastern San Francisco will need to implement mantraps and buzz customers in to browse. Another is to only offer kiosk service.
Think of it like always having to go to the pharmacy counter to get anything from CVS or Safeway. Call ahead, app, delivery, or curbside are the other options.
Since law enforcement doesn’t appear to have the tools to stop shop lifting, the stores will need to adapt to stay in business.
One last thing, not in the article, but gangs will rob Walgreens delivery trucks in broad daylight too.
Think of it like always having to go to the pharmacy counter to get anything from CVS or Safeway. Call ahead, app, delivery, or curbside are the other options.
Since law enforcement doesn’t appear to have the tools to stop shop lifting, the stores will need to adapt to stay in business.
One last thing, not in the article, but gangs will rob Walgreens delivery trucks in broad daylight too.
No, you will just not be able to shop in San Francisco. This is a massive country and San Francisco is a tiny city that doesn't even have a million people. There are over 9,000 Walgreens locations nationwide. The company will do just fine after closing a few dozen of them.
That's a little extreme. Walgreens may shut down in SF, but some local business will step in to fill the demand and they'll likely use techniques like the parent suggested. Either way, I don't think you will "just not be able to shop in San Francisco".
More like they’ll close and shoppers will go elsewhere, such as online or out of the city. It’s a loss in revenue for the city either way, and a pretty sad reality.
Who actually wants to operate the store, when the gangsters have clearly made an abundance of examples?
People who want money? There's plenty of convenience stores in crime-ridden parts of the country that operate with extreme security measures.
So does Walgreens not want money then or why are they shutting down? If a big business like Walgreens can’t make it profitable, why do you think a local business will do any better? I find it frustrating the level of denial and lack of common sense displayed here. Clearly the shoplifting issue is worse in SF than other cities due to its policies which essentially encourage it.
I think you're arguing past me. I agree the policies are garbage.
However, just because Walgreens is shutting down in SF, it doesn't mean that no one can make it profitable. They have a standardized way of running their stores and it might not be worth it to run one like that in SF. Someone who's local may be able to run a profitable store with a different approach. You might not get as much selection and you might not have as pleasant a shopping experience, but it can still work. There's plenty of pharmacy-type stores in the ghettos of America.
I think what you're saying is that you're frustrated at the trajectory of San Francisco and you want it to change. I do too, but I see it as inevitable. Now it's time to watch it all slowly crumble.
However, just because Walgreens is shutting down in SF, it doesn't mean that no one can make it profitable. They have a standardized way of running their stores and it might not be worth it to run one like that in SF. Someone who's local may be able to run a profitable store with a different approach. You might not get as much selection and you might not have as pleasant a shopping experience, but it can still work. There's plenty of pharmacy-type stores in the ghettos of America.
I think what you're saying is that you're frustrated at the trajectory of San Francisco and you want it to change. I do too, but I see it as inevitable. Now it's time to watch it all slowly crumble.
A guy I know was an assistant manager for Walgreens. He would get called in to pinch hit, sometimes in the less optimal parts of the city. He told me a story about a guy who was methodically hacking his way through the steel shutter they used to close the store at night. They had called the police an hour ago and they had not come. He had gotten a hole in large enough to get his arm through and was flailing about. The police finally showed when he was shoulders-in.
That Walgreens isn't there anymore.
That Walgreens isn't there anymore.
Other cities lag what happens in San Francisco.
and/or they learn what not to do from San Fransisco.
The Gas station near where I live (California and Steiner) buzzes you in if you are there outside core hours.
The Burberry store near Union square buzzes you in at all hours. Well at least the two times I visited.
The Burberry store near Union square buzzes you in at all hours. Well at least the two times I visited.
I'd be suprised if they'd go with any system except their current one. They probably make a good chunk of money by having people walk around the store and impulse buy things like magazines and snacks, and this also seems to be a local issue. The Walgreens near me has titled mirrors high up on the walls so staff can see down every isle no matter where they are, and I've seen the manager catch somebody stealing, so he made them empty their pockets then kicked them out of the store.
>I've seen the manager catch somebody stealing, so he made them empty their pockets then kicked them out of the store.
And what if they refuse? From the other comments here it sounds like the manager won't be able to do anything if the thief didn't copmly, continued putting things in his pocket and walked out.
And what if they refuse? From the other comments here it sounds like the manager won't be able to do anything if the thief didn't copmly, continued putting things in his pocket and walked out.
All of these will result in much higher prices.
> Eventually shops in eastern San Francisco will need to implement mantraps
This seems like one of the easiest things to do and the banks in California do this even if they're in low crime areas.
Why haven't the stores done this rather than closing?
I suspect the answer is that this is a nice excuse to get rid of underperforming stores that they would get dinged for racism if they closed them wholesale without a PR excuse.
This seems like one of the easiest things to do and the banks in California do this even if they're in low crime areas.
Why haven't the stores done this rather than closing?
I suspect the answer is that this is a nice excuse to get rid of underperforming stores that they would get dinged for racism if they closed them wholesale without a PR excuse.
The size of the store and the number of employees needed to maintain adequate mantraps would be too many - and you’d basically need to shadow every customer anyway.
Another option is to use AI, like what Standard Cognition does. A customer registers a profile in the mantrap (via app, etc) and then is buzzed into the shop. The cameras just log whatever the customer walks out with — it doesn’t matter if they shove it in their pants or put it in a bag. Clerks in the store exist just for assistance.
It all gets billed to the customer’s account once they leave the store.
Ironically, their demo store is on 6th and Market next door to where Huckleberry bikes was.
It all gets billed to the customer’s account once they leave the store.
Ironically, their demo store is on 6th and Market next door to where Huckleberry bikes was.
An interesting write-up about the SF District Attorney, who appears to be enabling this injustice.
https://stanfordreview.org/chesa-boudin-san-francisco-crime/
https://stanfordreview.org/chesa-boudin-san-francisco-crime/
This is absolutely an important part of it, but.... you get what you vote for. Chesa never hid his stances.
Well, there's an interesting point that a ton of SF residents cannot legally vote at all. So it's harder to claim that the average SF resident voted for him.
Historical note: in the days before supermarkets, all the inventory was kept behind the counter. Someone had to come up with the idea of letting customers browse the shelves and that shoplifting was an acceptable loss.
Maybe it will move the other way again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggly_Wiggly
Maybe it will move the other way again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggly_Wiggly
The tech solution is amazon go https://www.amazon.com/b?ie=UTF8&node=16008589011
You don't get let in without an amazon account. Once in, you take what you want and computers figure out what you bought and charge you.
You don't get let in without an amazon account. Once in, you take what you want and computers figure out what you bought and charge you.
You jump over turnstile without an amazon account.
Once in, you take what you want and leave.
I imagine if that's a problem there are some crafty designs that can physically prevent someone from entering without "tagging in."
Man LA sure sounds like a shithole. Here in the Netherlands in the big cities most stores allow self checkout
self checkout is all over the place in LA.
I could take it or leave it.
I certainly wouldn't condemn a location as 'a shithole' simply due to whether or not self-checkout was a thing, but i'm not going to go out of my way to defend LA, either.
P.S. where did LA come into all this? I re-read everything and can't quite figure it out.
I could take it or leave it.
I certainly wouldn't condemn a location as 'a shithole' simply due to whether or not self-checkout was a thing, but i'm not going to go out of my way to defend LA, either.
P.S. where did LA come into all this? I re-read everything and can't quite figure it out.
I think there is certainly a space for picking everything in an app on your phone before you actually go to the shop or pay a bit more for the shop to come to you. Presumably this would be less costly to run than a traditional store.
Perhaps today you could have machines manage many clerical duties. Essentially like a giant vending machine.
I mean have hyper local delivery and pickup only stores everywhere.
I remember going out to the Safeway near Castro sometime late at night, and while minding my own business I see two guards doing an NFL chase and tackle on a shoplifter which attempted to run out. That was a while ago, 2015 or so. I understood it's a very routine thing, happened every night sometimes multiple times.
SF to me feels like a cautionary tale of a city that had everything going for it but mismanages its fortunes all the way to the ground, very much like a national Resource Curse.
SF to me feels like a cautionary tale of a city that had everything going for it but mismanages its fortunes all the way to the ground, very much like a national Resource Curse.
What do you suppose they did to cause this?
I'm genuinely asking because I'm drawing a blank.
I'm genuinely asking because I'm drawing a blank.
It's mostly politics and people being extremely oblivious. At some point you're just a dumb person for not seeing what's right in front of you.
The city became insanely rich and successful due to external factors. It never had to enact reasonable public policies around housing, policing or development because money and people just accumulated regardless. It became a testbed for the insane and incompetent.
All the families got priced out
Aggregate increases in petty crime, robbery, etc. always have a socioeconomic precedent. As a result of being ruled by capital and neoliberal policymaking, SF has rapidly become unfit for those who previously lived there. The neoliberals themselves will blame it on policies like rent control, suggesting that the free hand of the market would solve everything if given a chance. But the contemporary United States, and especially California, is itself the most radical experiment of free market solutions on Earth.
We've banned this account for using HN for ideological flamewar. That's not allowed on HN, regardless of what you're flaming for; nor are single-purpose accounts generally.
If you'd please not create accounts to break HN's rules with, we'd appreciate it. Everything here is there for good reason: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
If you'd please not create accounts to break HN's rules with, we'd appreciate it. Everything here is there for good reason: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
please post this link to the news guidelines in the UI for submitting
https://news.ycombinator.com/submit https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/submit https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
What?
I was always lead to believe that particular Safeway was purpose-built for Nikita Khrushchev to ogle produce[^1]. Why should we still think it's reasonable to promote something that was never meant to exist beyond a cold war photo op? Two guards? Why do we need grocery stores with two guards? It's definitely an impressively large space, but supermarkets are such a twentieth century gimmick.
[^1]: https://blogs.lt.vt.edu/bcody99/2020/09/07/a-day-at-the-supe...
[^1]: https://blogs.lt.vt.edu/bcody99/2020/09/07/a-day-at-the-supe...
Past related threads:
Out of control San Francisco shoplifting forcing Walgreens to close 17 stores - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27216343 - May 2021 (178 comments)
Rampant shoplifting leads to another Walgreens closing in S.F - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24842412 - Oct 2020 (33 comments)
Out of control San Francisco shoplifting forcing Walgreens to close 17 stores - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27216343 - May 2021 (178 comments)
Rampant shoplifting leads to another Walgreens closing in S.F - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24842412 - Oct 2020 (33 comments)
I struggle to figure out why the homeless are so visible in SF but not in other cities like Manhattan. My only haphazard guess is that it has to do with the weather. I could ask the same question about why SF is the only city that has to lock up soap in their grocery stores.
SF strikes me as the city with the highest highs and the lowest lows.
SF strikes me as the city with the highest highs and the lowest lows.
It's not the weather: NYC goes to great efforts to house its homeless, including renting hotels indefinitely[1] to house homeless individuals and families. It's one of the few pieces of city policy that I'm proud to publicize.
And, for what it's worth, many pricier essentials are either locked or behind sliding panes in NYC stores. The Duane Reade near me has panes that chime when you push them aside, alerting anyone nearby and also preventing you from swiping an entire row of items into a bag or cart.
[1]: https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/homelessness/2020/06/25...
And, for what it's worth, many pricier essentials are either locked or behind sliding panes in NYC stores. The Duane Reade near me has panes that chime when you push them aside, alerting anyone nearby and also preventing you from swiping an entire row of items into a bag or cart.
[1]: https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/homelessness/2020/06/25...
I think a lot of it is the weather -- acting as a forcing function to deliver the observed results.
If NYC, if you don't have enough shelter space, there will be large numbers of people dying in the streets in the winter, so the city's hand is forced, and they have to build enough shelters or rent hotels, etc. That's not the case in California.
And likewise, if you prefer to sleep outside instead of in a shelter, that's an option year-round in California. But not in NYC, at least for a few months a year. So your hand is forced and you have to get used to sleeping in a shelter.
If NYC, if you don't have enough shelter space, there will be large numbers of people dying in the streets in the winter, so the city's hand is forced, and they have to build enough shelters or rent hotels, etc. That's not the case in California.
And likewise, if you prefer to sleep outside instead of in a shelter, that's an option year-round in California. But not in NYC, at least for a few months a year. So your hand is forced and you have to get used to sleeping in a shelter.
> If NYC, if you don't have enough shelter space, there will be large numbers of people dying in the streets in the winter, so the city's hand is forced, and they have to build enough shelters or rent hotels, etc. That's not the case in California.
I don't know whether you intend it as such, but I hear Californians regularly bring up their mild weather as a defense of their state's failure to develop an adequate support system for the homeless.
Focusing on (most of) California's lack of four seasons ignores the brute facts of street living, namely: you're still exposed to the elements and weather (you don't need to be in a cold climate to get hypothermia), to street pollution, and to irregular sleep and disturbance by members of the public and police.
In a humane system any of the above is a sufficient "forcing function," which is why NYC doesn't close homeless shelters once it's "nice enough" to survive outside. California shouldn't need a bodycount to justify housing its homeless.
I don't know whether you intend it as such, but I hear Californians regularly bring up their mild weather as a defense of their state's failure to develop an adequate support system for the homeless.
Focusing on (most of) California's lack of four seasons ignores the brute facts of street living, namely: you're still exposed to the elements and weather (you don't need to be in a cold climate to get hypothermia), to street pollution, and to irregular sleep and disturbance by members of the public and police.
In a humane system any of the above is a sufficient "forcing function," which is why NYC doesn't close homeless shelters once it's "nice enough" to survive outside. California shouldn't need a bodycount to justify housing its homeless.
> California shouldn't need a bodycount to justify housing its homeless
What percentage of housing should California allocate to homeless people? What conditions should have to be met before the state houses someone?
If I want to temporarily move to LA tomorrow, why don't I just say I'm homeless(which would be true) and force the state to house me somewhere for the duration of my visit?
What percentage of housing should California allocate to homeless people? What conditions should have to be met before the state houses someone?
If I want to temporarily move to LA tomorrow, why don't I just say I'm homeless(which would be true) and force the state to house me somewhere for the duration of my visit?
> What percentage of housing should California allocate to homeless people? What conditions should have to be met before the state houses someone?
What percentage of the population should California force onto the streets? Framing the question around a "percentage of housing" minimizes the humanitarian aspect of the problem, at the absolute minimum.
Questions about sufficient conditions are policy ones, and they seem irrelevant (again, at best) to the material fact that SF already has thousands of people sleeping in the open. Focusing on them seems prudent.
> If I want to temporarily move to LA tomorrow, why don't I just say I'm homeless(which would be true) and force the state to house me somewhere for the duration of my visit?
I don't know if you've ever been to a homeless shelter. I have, and you really don't want to live in one unless you absolutely have to. The idea that individuals with means would willingly prefer and tax the resources of the shelter system is farcical.
What percentage of the population should California force onto the streets? Framing the question around a "percentage of housing" minimizes the humanitarian aspect of the problem, at the absolute minimum.
Questions about sufficient conditions are policy ones, and they seem irrelevant (again, at best) to the material fact that SF already has thousands of people sleeping in the open. Focusing on them seems prudent.
> If I want to temporarily move to LA tomorrow, why don't I just say I'm homeless(which would be true) and force the state to house me somewhere for the duration of my visit?
I don't know if you've ever been to a homeless shelter. I have, and you really don't want to live in one unless you absolutely have to. The idea that individuals with means would willingly prefer and tax the resources of the shelter system is farcical.
What happens to all of the people who are too mentally unstable to live in a hotel/SRO/shelter?
The same thing that happens to them elsewhere in the US: the overwhelming majority of them are taken in by the carceral system in lieu of actual care.
I'd like to think that NYC is at least slightly better, numbers wise, but it probably isn't.
I'd like to think that NYC is at least slightly better, numbers wise, but it probably isn't.
In California that doesn’t seem to be the case. I can take you to streets where there a half naked people out of their mind and no cops are coming for them.
I can say it's a lack of forward thinking policy. My city, for example, has a very small but visible homeless problem. The majority are housed in shelters and shared housing. The remainder are the mentally, pedophiles, and physically violent. There is also a quantity of pet owners, pets aren't allowed in shelters so they chose the streets, but will use the shelter's showers. Our chronically homeless count has gone down from 8,000 to just over 1,000.
SF strikes me as nice but not kind city. If you're destitute they'll give you a dollar. But building affordable housing is too far a step.
SF strikes me as nice but not kind city. If you're destitute they'll give you a dollar. But building affordable housing is too far a step.
> But building affordable housing is too far a step
Building any housing that's not a McMansion in SF is literally almost impossible. NIMBY politics run deep in California.
Building any housing that's not a McMansion in SF is literally almost impossible. NIMBY politics run deep in California.
California has so many great things going for it the locals would rather it not change. So they’ll pretend it’s full. And aggravate people there to leave and convince outsiders it’s not worth going to.
That’s how I interpret the laws. They are dysfunctional for a reason. Because no rational government could run this way.
That’s how I interpret the laws. They are dysfunctional for a reason. Because no rational government could run this way.
I can understand affordable housing to help lower incomes - but couldn’t SF build housing for the actual unemployed homeless far away from the city, even unto another state?
Is this serious? Why should other states import SFs homeless problem?
NYC is strict, if you see tents or mattresses you ring the city and they'll take it away within a few hours. https://portal.311.nyc.gov/article/?kanumber=KA-02253
Manhattan has orders of magnitude more homeless but shelters over 90% of them.
Yep, and anyone who thinks SF's homeless situation is bad needs to take a trip down to LA. LA's a step away from favelas.
People in favelas typically have built their own home and often have electricity. LA is worse because having a tent is fortunate.
in New York City
where it gets colder
and they are hunted by their own
kind, these men often crawl under car radiators,
drink the anti-freeze,
get warm and grateful for some minutes, then die.
but that is an older culture and a wiser one
- Bukowski, 1973
where it gets colder
and they are hunted by their own
kind, these men often crawl under car radiators,
drink the anti-freeze,
get warm and grateful for some minutes, then die.
but that is an older culture and a wiser one
- Bukowski, 1973
The tenderloin is right in the middle of the city, next to just about everything you would want to do in the city. That's where they all congregate. SF is also pretty small. The most visited areas of NYC don't have sros and homeless shelters
This isn’t true: NYC has largely eliminated SROs, but the most touristy neighborhoods are also frequently the ones with the most shelters and/or DHS accommodations. Off the top of my head: Chinatown, Midtown/TS, and the UWS all have a large number of shelters and accommodations. I grew up next to one on the UWS, volunteered at another, and currently live next to a third.
Check a map of homeless shelters in sf and compare it to Manhattan. Manhattan has them scattered around, sf has everything in the tenderloin. It's like having a 10x10 block of only homeless related stuff right next to times Square. So it's very visible. NYC's poverty is pushed to the edges of city and boroughs
Three things:
* Manhattan alone has twice as many people as San Francisco, in less than half the space. It also isn't districted as cleanly as SF is -- even the office and business areas of Manhattan are heavily residential. Put another way: everybody lives somewhere in Manhattan, so it makes sense to scatter shelters and other managed housing throughout the island.
* If we're talking specifically about shelters, Manhattan's are not particularly scatted: the majority are in midtown (right next to Times Square!), and a sizable minority are on the LES/in Chinatown. It's hard to find an official reference for this (since so many of NYC's shelters are nonprofits), but here's a user-created map with some datapoints[1].
* As mentioned in the original comment, NYC aggressively attempts to house its homeless population, including with indefinite hotel rentals. Hotels are dispersed through the city, so it's no particular surprise that their use as homeless housing results in the homeless being somewhat less concentrated in particular neighborhoods. You have an independent (and correct!) point about poverty in the city, but I don't think your observation makes sense for homelessness itself.
[1]: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=...
* Manhattan alone has twice as many people as San Francisco, in less than half the space. It also isn't districted as cleanly as SF is -- even the office and business areas of Manhattan are heavily residential. Put another way: everybody lives somewhere in Manhattan, so it makes sense to scatter shelters and other managed housing throughout the island.
* If we're talking specifically about shelters, Manhattan's are not particularly scatted: the majority are in midtown (right next to Times Square!), and a sizable minority are on the LES/in Chinatown. It's hard to find an official reference for this (since so many of NYC's shelters are nonprofits), but here's a user-created map with some datapoints[1].
* As mentioned in the original comment, NYC aggressively attempts to house its homeless population, including with indefinite hotel rentals. Hotels are dispersed through the city, so it's no particular surprise that their use as homeless housing results in the homeless being somewhat less concentrated in particular neighborhoods. You have an independent (and correct!) point about poverty in the city, but I don't think your observation makes sense for homelessness itself.
[1]: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=...
I think your making the same point as me but not agreeing with the conclusion? Right nyc is more diverse in each area as far as types of buildings. Sf's tenderloin and mid market area is unique as it's a highly concentrated area of homelessness. It also happens to be right next to some of the busiest areas. All of this bleeds over to business, tourist and hotel areas so people see it all the time. Richmond, sunset, bernal, Glen Park are neighborhoods that are pretty far from the tenderloin and don't have homeless people in them. theres nothing in nyc thats compareable to the tenderloin area. what ive seen for visitors is they go to the moscone center for some event, only a mile away from the tenderloin, then their company puts them in a hotel downtown near Powell Street, only blocks from there. so people come to sf and are immediately exposed to dense concentration of the homelessness.
I think we're agreeing on most things, but there's one thing in particular that we're not: I'm saying that there is an area in NYC that is simultaneously (1) visited heavily by tourists and (2) has a large proportion of the city's shelter and homeless services capacity. That area is Midtown, which contains Times Square, Penn Station, Grand Central, Rockefeller Center, the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building, and most of the other major tourist attractions in NYC. That area is also home to the largest tourist and convention-oriented hotels (the Penn, the Waldorf-Astoria, etc.).
And, to be clear, the homeless are more visible in that area! But I wouldn't say disproportionately so, given the population and density of Manhattan itself. I consider that a testament to NYC's (relative) success at providing homeless services.
And, to be clear, the homeless are more visible in that area! But I wouldn't say disproportionately so, given the population and density of Manhattan itself. I consider that a testament to NYC's (relative) success at providing homeless services.
It is fairly visible in Eugene, Portland, and Seattle too. Though, it doesn't seem to be on par with SF quite yet.
Probably because if you're homeless and sleep outside during the winter in NYC you'll die.
My father has told me stories about being around Washington D.C. in the 70s. How it wasn't all that uncommon to stumble across a dead body in the winter. Whether homeless or drunk, they'd fall asleep and die in the cold. One particularly bad winter, he found a dead body in the stairwell leading up to his apartment. I'm sure it still happens today but the way he spoke about it made me realize how quickly the world changes.
Disparity is everywhere in the US, but it’ll be more visible in some places. The fact that we’re talking about this here is just the beginning, so many people can’t see that there’s a huge crisis coming up for the US.
Serious question - is the city actually interested in fixing the problem? I haven't seen any evidence of it outside of paying lip service. One can only assume this is the result of negligence or someone's benefiting from the increased crime.
This isn't rocket science. We know the solution to homelessness is to build sufficient shelters. NYC did it in response to shifting opinions about letting people freeze to death on the streets. Utah did it for religious reasons.
From what I see in my city, and read about in SF, the real crux of the problem is people blocking the construction of shelters. Very loud NIMBYs show up to every single neighborhood association meeting about this topic. They don't care about stores closing or ultimately solving the problem because they don't shop at places like Walgreens.
I wish I knew how to shift the political deadlock on this, but I simply do not. In my city there's a small amount of progress towards camps with permanent shelters, but it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed.
From what I see in my city, and read about in SF, the real crux of the problem is people blocking the construction of shelters. Very loud NIMBYs show up to every single neighborhood association meeting about this topic. They don't care about stores closing or ultimately solving the problem because they don't shop at places like Walgreens.
I wish I knew how to shift the political deadlock on this, but I simply do not. In my city there's a small amount of progress towards camps with permanent shelters, but it's still just a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed.
This actually seems quite solvable by reducing local neighborhood's ability to influence new development. Everyone wants the situation to improve, NIMBY's know how to block it. On a ballot measure the majority can rightly assume that development will not affect their immediate neighborhood.
Some of these problems require City or Regional policy to manage, deferring to local neighborhoods leads to gridlock.
Some of these problems require City or Regional policy to manage, deferring to local neighborhoods leads to gridlock.
Not building shelters is only part of the problem. SF can't build any housing. It's also astonishingly inefficient to build homeless shelters in one of the most expensive cities in the country. That, and it induces demand from other homeless people in the region who flock to the city for its services (some already do this). On the other hand, the state housing homeless people somewhere outside Bakersfield isn't morally viable, either.
[deleted]
I live in SF, it's normal to see someone run out of a Walgreens while an employee tells another employee not to chase the person down (because they don't want to get injured). There's no accountability for theft.
Don't need to send someone to jail, but there's gotta be something better than shrugging shoulders.
Don't need to send someone to jail, but there's gotta be something better than shrugging shoulders.
My first week moving here, in 2018, I took a bus and saw a girl getting mugged in front of everyone. I froze. I stopped taking public transport after that. It’s sad how much money I waste on ubers just because I’m scared of public transport here.
[deleted]
I fully expect San Francisco stores to disappear entirely and replaced with 1-hour delivery services. Hopefully we can replace most of this retail space with more housing (unlikely).
Sounds like exactly the dystopia that the United States has been aiming for. But what’s the end game?
The retail space will become housing, but it won’t be affordable.
The retail space will become housing, but it won’t be affordable.
My wild guess is City of London. Massive amounts of office space. Like 500 housing spaces, no shops, no kids, quite a few restaurants and bars to cater to the workers.
Sounds like hell to me but to each their own.
Not sure where you got that impression from, London has great shopping districts and tons of huge street markets. Better than most US cities.
London and city of London are different. Agree, London is great. City of London was pretty sparse when I visited. Perhaps things have changed.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London
Ah, I understand. I do remember that area feeling very off-putting, lots of people in suits and not much else. If the whole of SF turns into that it would be pretty terrible.
At a certain point, if the housing is unaffordable, and there's no retail, why would you want to live there?
Not US but SF and other progressive cities.
What is “progressive” about SF? It’s just another neoliberal port city. There’s nothing even slightly progressive about it.
SF is antithetical to neoliberalism. It’s a NIMBY central.
Neoliberals want unrestricted zoning, land value tax, and freedom of enterprise. SF is all about blocking new housing and punishing corporations.
Neoliberals want unrestricted zoning, land value tax, and freedom of enterprise. SF is all about blocking new housing and punishing corporations.
Replace punishing corporations with rewarding property owners.
I really don’t see why it’s a dystopia. Stores are a means to access logistics services for particular classes of goods. Like that’s their whole purpose, they’re a community cache. If people like the milkman system better for most things I see that at worst a neutral change.
This is a result of soft on crime policies, also known as “restorative justice”. It involves changing laws to reduce penalties, directing police departments to not enforce certain laws, releasing offenders instead of sentencing them, and following activist driven demands when it comes to the justice system. A number of cities have seen shoplifters and even dangerous criminals released repeatedly due to these progressive policies, and it has had the same effect of encouraging crime in each location.
As a result Chesa Boudin, the SF DA, is facing a recall campaign (https://recallchesaboudin.org/) as is LA DA George Gascon (https://recallgeorgegascon.com/). Seattle has had massive spikes in low level crimes and business associations have put out reports (https://allianceforpioneersquare.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2...) tracking repeat offenders who cycle through the system and continue to victimize the community.
There was a recent guest article on Glenn Greenwald’s Substack about the consequences of progressive reform policies from the DA in Philadelphia that is worth reading as a deep analysis into the effect of these policies: https://outsidevoices.substack.com/p/mounting-violence-casts...
As a result Chesa Boudin, the SF DA, is facing a recall campaign (https://recallchesaboudin.org/) as is LA DA George Gascon (https://recallgeorgegascon.com/). Seattle has had massive spikes in low level crimes and business associations have put out reports (https://allianceforpioneersquare.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2...) tracking repeat offenders who cycle through the system and continue to victimize the community.
There was a recent guest article on Glenn Greenwald’s Substack about the consequences of progressive reform policies from the DA in Philadelphia that is worth reading as a deep analysis into the effect of these policies: https://outsidevoices.substack.com/p/mounting-violence-casts...
It's always the poor people who get screwed by such policies. People who can afford it move to safe suburbs while the poor people are left in the shitty neighborhoods. I don't mind policies that encourage being soft on low crimes, but you cannot let those people walk free and keep that behavior. You need to invest in rehabilitation and eventually jail those who keep committing crimes.
Being "tough on crime" is what got us into this mess in the first place.
Unrelated pull from the article: “The city has had twice as many fatal drug overdoses as coronavirus deaths.”
Wow.
Wow.
It's a city with a large homeless and drug abuse problem that shut down hard for covid.
Was there a statistically significant outlier of a year of increased overdoses recently though? If not, all this says is that the city of SF handled Coronavirus well.
# accidental drug overdose deaths in SF:
2020: 697
2019: 441
2018: 259...So yes.
My take is "no" - It looks like it was already trending up prior to Covid-19. I don't think there were any shutdowns until 2020.
I hate to say it but automation & robotocization of the store seems semi-inevitable in these conditions. Hell, it's somewhat near-to the advancement of vending machines, which have evolved to survive fairly hostile environments, although i'm imagining this at a bigger scale.
I also kind of picture The Melt[1] start-up. I'd never been there, never seen photos, but conceptually, The Melt, as an automated grilled cheese restauraunt, seems like a mix between a traditional on-demand restauraunt, and a vending machine.
Amazon Go[2] stores are another interesting data-point to consider, a highly automated store that monitors it's patrons & knows how to charge them. The marketing says "convenience" and lack of hassle, but also there's a huge automation/surveillance power play going on here too. Wait till an Amazon Kiva bot runs out of the wall & starts chasing you around, trying to taser you for shoplifting, & it'll have a different character... but it'll be built on the bones of this high end automated experience none-the-less.
There's plenty of sci-fi examples we could turn to too. In Altered Carbon the book, for example, Takeshi Kovacs stays at a highly-automated self-defending Hendrix hotel[3] ("Bay City", year 2384). There's already somewhat the vibe of living inside of an automated vending machine, which provides you on demand what you ask for,... once it knows it can charge you. In many ways I keep thinking, it's basically going to be like living inside a comfortable, cordoned off, consumer section of an Amazon warehouse, where the robots are still happy to serve.
Atm it seems like this is a somewhat localized problem, so perhaps we'll escape these grim-dark futures.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-trendiest-grilled-cheese...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13105689
[3] https://www.looper.com/364474/the-real-reason-the-hotel-in-a...
I also kind of picture The Melt[1] start-up. I'd never been there, never seen photos, but conceptually, The Melt, as an automated grilled cheese restauraunt, seems like a mix between a traditional on-demand restauraunt, and a vending machine.
Amazon Go[2] stores are another interesting data-point to consider, a highly automated store that monitors it's patrons & knows how to charge them. The marketing says "convenience" and lack of hassle, but also there's a huge automation/surveillance power play going on here too. Wait till an Amazon Kiva bot runs out of the wall & starts chasing you around, trying to taser you for shoplifting, & it'll have a different character... but it'll be built on the bones of this high end automated experience none-the-less.
There's plenty of sci-fi examples we could turn to too. In Altered Carbon the book, for example, Takeshi Kovacs stays at a highly-automated self-defending Hendrix hotel[3] ("Bay City", year 2384). There's already somewhat the vibe of living inside of an automated vending machine, which provides you on demand what you ask for,... once it knows it can charge you. In many ways I keep thinking, it's basically going to be like living inside a comfortable, cordoned off, consumer section of an Amazon warehouse, where the robots are still happy to serve.
Atm it seems like this is a somewhat localized problem, so perhaps we'll escape these grim-dark futures.
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/how-the-trendiest-grilled-cheese...
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13105689
[3] https://www.looper.com/364474/the-real-reason-the-hotel-in-a...
If it is illegal to defend property then you don't have property rights.
This is a great point. I don't see why somebody should be able to steal my motorcycle- the object of my affection- and me being helpless. What's next, somebody kidnaps my girlfriend and I have to watch them take her away?
This is literally the case in many places that have laws about the "proportionality" of self defense. If the guy is much bigger/stronger than you, but unarmed, if you use a knife or gun to stop him you could go to jail. But as the saying goes, better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
San Franisco's DA is the son of two convicted murderers, one of whom is still incarcerated since his childhood, and as a result of which he was raised by literal domestic terrorists. This seems to have caused him no little psychological trauma which is why he is extremely reluctant to prosecute even hardened criminals. Unfortunately for the law abiding citizens of SF, that is his job.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chesa_Boudin please provide corrections if this is incorrect; via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_District_Attorne...
also https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/
Wow, I thought the original commenter was exaggerating but nope. He was raised by members of the Weather Underground. Before law school he also worked for the Chavez regime in Venezuela.
I don't know anything about him other than what's in those wiki articles, just crazy how much he sounds like a right wing caricature of a leftist politician, to the extent it's hard to believe at first sight. He's living proof of Poe's Law.
I don't know anything about him other than what's in those wiki articles, just crazy how much he sounds like a right wing caricature of a leftist politician, to the extent it's hard to believe at first sight. He's living proof of Poe's Law.
His adoptive parents were part of a circle of people who, in the 1970s, suggested that up to 70 million Americans might have to be interned and executed in order to bring about Communism. And to be specific, they felt that this would be an acceptable price to pay.
Some thoughts make someone wirelessly attest to their identity via their phone if they want to be allowed to come into your location. If someone while inside your establishment walks out with the merchandise then suddenly every store in town auto locks their door when they approach or wont unlock if they approach without their phone.
Make it appealable in case of issue but if they have you on video you pretty much aren't winning.
If more people than phones approach the door just don't open and play a verbal warning preventing tailgating.
Make it appealable in case of issue but if they have you on video you pretty much aren't winning.
If more people than phones approach the door just don't open and play a verbal warning preventing tailgating.
What kind of dystopian world are you imagining here. No, and I hope people make it their life’s work to publish bypasses for such a tyrannical regime.
The fact that you visited ____ could be stored by law nowhere while still denying bob the shoplifter from visiting any walmart or partner org the opportunity to continue his crime spree.
how is this any better than security cameras? It's not like it would even stop them from forcing their way in
There entire career is based on stores being unwilling to risk employees by forcing a confrontation and turning stolen consumer goods into drugs.
Change the dynamic without putting people at risk. Trying to break into a business is a different sort of crime. It's one in a lot of jurisdictions you can legally shoot offenders, it's worth prosecution, it's a felony worth 5 or more years in prison.
Enforce it and this career won't make much sense anymore because it's too hard to be practical for the same reason that junkies aren't robbing banks regularly.
Change the dynamic without putting people at risk. Trying to break into a business is a different sort of crime. It's one in a lot of jurisdictions you can legally shoot offenders, it's worth prosecution, it's a felony worth 5 or more years in prison.
Enforce it and this career won't make much sense anymore because it's too hard to be practical for the same reason that junkies aren't robbing banks regularly.
I first got an idea of this "petty crime" epidemic when reading on a car brand forum when doing research about a model. Owners were constantly complaining about their rear quarter windows getting punched out. Over and over again it was west coast, but especially San Fran owners talking about it. It was so common that people were taking the recommendation to put down the rear seats so thieves could see the empty trunk and not punch out your window to check the trunk for stuff to steal. The criminals became experts in technique because even when handed dash cam videos with license plates and faces of perps, there were no investigations, arrests or prosecutions. You could see videos of them pulling in, making a hit and leaving in under a minute.
Living in NYC I've watched our politics slowly follow the same mistakes as SF in terms of non-prosecution and catch&release for "non violent" crimes just as COVID hit. The confluence of the two has lead to an insane increase in crime in NYC. We have a similar anti-Asian hate crime epidemic, in addition to a 100% increase in shootings & 50% increase in murders 2019->2020. The trend has continued, we are on track for another 20-50% increase in 2021, and summer, the traditional shooting season has not begun. The murder rate has backtracked 10 years of progress in 1 year.
Some might say "oh well those are non-violent criminals being release, so its not the same people doing the shooting". Well in video after video of dudes beating the shit out of an Asian guy on subway, the clip starts with the guy jumping a turnstile to enter the station. It turns out some criminals do lots of different crimes! When you decide some crimes don't really need enforcing anymore, the criminal can continue to go do more of the other crimes as well.
I suspect the pendulum is about to swing the other way in NYC given the mayoral candidates. The impression I have is that the mayhem has now spilled over into rich neighborhoods filled with the very vocal liberals who previously supported these policies, and suddenly find themselves of a different mind.
Living in NYC I've watched our politics slowly follow the same mistakes as SF in terms of non-prosecution and catch&release for "non violent" crimes just as COVID hit. The confluence of the two has lead to an insane increase in crime in NYC. We have a similar anti-Asian hate crime epidemic, in addition to a 100% increase in shootings & 50% increase in murders 2019->2020. The trend has continued, we are on track for another 20-50% increase in 2021, and summer, the traditional shooting season has not begun. The murder rate has backtracked 10 years of progress in 1 year.
Some might say "oh well those are non-violent criminals being release, so its not the same people doing the shooting". Well in video after video of dudes beating the shit out of an Asian guy on subway, the clip starts with the guy jumping a turnstile to enter the station. It turns out some criminals do lots of different crimes! When you decide some crimes don't really need enforcing anymore, the criminal can continue to go do more of the other crimes as well.
I suspect the pendulum is about to swing the other way in NYC given the mayoral candidates. The impression I have is that the mayhem has now spilled over into rich neighborhoods filled with the very vocal liberals who previously supported these policies, and suddenly find themselves of a different mind.
I’ve always wondered if California and other places perceived as more liberal have greater problems with smaller crime, homelessness, etc because they are more tolerant of people in these situations and therefore attract them from across the USA?
That and the weather. Wonder no more.
I grew up in Arizona which has a mixture of conservatives and liberals but tends towards conservative on most issues. Before I moved to SF, homelessness and petty crime were previously unknown concepts to me, and I grew up in a pretty poor part of Phoenix that had a large immigrant population.
These problems absolutely affect liberal cities more than conservative ones. I consider myself left-of-center but there is no point lying about this fact.
These problems absolutely affect liberal cities more than conservative ones. I consider myself left-of-center but there is no point lying about this fact.
Prop 47 misled the public and needs to be repealed.
I bet the locals will cuddle the shoplifters and protect them from police. I'm not even exaggerating that much.
I live in East Asia. I was once dreamed I could work and live in SF one day, as many tech people do.
After several trips there, I was totally disillusioned, and that's even before the COVID breakout. The glamorous side, that I already know from the Internet. However, the nasty side, that I didn't expect at all. On one hand, there was window busting and all, and there were no effective actions taken to address those. On the other hand, the system doesn't seem to care about poor and homeless people to help them and lift them from their situations. It's the worse situation on both sides of the story, and there's no fix in sight.
An outstanding issue is the price of the rent. I grew up in commie blocks and I hated it, just like everybody else: it was cheap, ugly, and depressing. After traveled around the world, I realized: the counterpart of commie blocks around the world was not nice apartments as we imagined, but slums and homelessness.
After several trips there, I was totally disillusioned, and that's even before the COVID breakout. The glamorous side, that I already know from the Internet. However, the nasty side, that I didn't expect at all. On one hand, there was window busting and all, and there were no effective actions taken to address those. On the other hand, the system doesn't seem to care about poor and homeless people to help them and lift them from their situations. It's the worse situation on both sides of the story, and there's no fix in sight.
An outstanding issue is the price of the rent. I grew up in commie blocks and I hated it, just like everybody else: it was cheap, ugly, and depressing. After traveled around the world, I realized: the counterpart of commie blocks around the world was not nice apartments as we imagined, but slums and homelessness.
I recommend giving it another chance. SF really is an amazing city despite all of its problems.
The solution is to reprice every item in the store to over $1,000.
Attach a "$1000" security device to each item. It gets taken off at the counter.
Haha, I was thinking offer a thousand dollar discount at checkout!
Instead of the "Dollar Store", I'd be opening the "Grand Store - nothing under a Grand!"
Instead of the "Dollar Store", I'd be opening the "Grand Store - nothing under a Grand!"
I don't see any reason to pay for anything less than $950 now. Lots of goodies at the union square apple store.
If you were a cop in SF would you be brave enough to chase criminals and arrest shoplifters? I wouldn't. Way too much Monday morning risk.
Sounds like someone that afraid of shoplifters shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun, or really have any punitive enforcement capabilities on anyone.
Cops are the whiniest babies. Everyone else does their job without self-crucifixion at every opportunity. “Wow I’d really like to ruin this persons life but paperwork”. So much wrong with this mentality
Cops are the whiniest babies. Everyone else does their job without self-crucifixion at every opportunity. “Wow I’d really like to ruin this persons life but paperwork”. So much wrong with this mentality
In liberal cities in the US police can be charged and convicted of homicide if they arrest people who overdose while in custody. You may be unaware of this, but the police know all about it. Every time they do their jobs, it's a gamble as to whether the media will decide to destroy them.
Lol! You think the risk comes from the arrest and not man-children like you who will castigate the cop for making the arrest.
No doubt the cop would be harassed in the street whilst others scream 'they didnt do nothin'
No doubt the cop would be harassed in the street whilst others scream 'they didnt do nothin'
That could be the end of self-service, and a roll back to the counter type shop, where you pay and then are handled the merchandise. Inventers will provide a mechanical and digitalized solution to keep large inventory and optimize space.
To be honest, I have a hard time believing that the change in laws is what's actually driving more theft. Is the average shoplifter really doing cost-benefit analysis by planning out the value of their theft and then googling what punishment they're likely to receive before going into Walgreens and taking stuff?
They do: they see how their buddies get away with increasingly more brazen crimes and become more brazen themselves.
A lot of non-impulsive crime has long been planned with probable sentences factored in - both in terms of quantities of drugs carried, types of things stolen, age of perpetrators used, etc. They don't need to Google; they can talk to fellow criminals.
If you lighten consequences for bad behavior, you’ll get more bad behavior. If you incentivize good behavior you get more good behavior. It’s how the world works.
I'm kinda surprised the amazon go store in the westfield doesn't get hit.
You can’t enter without an Amazon account and the app on your phone, I believe.
jump the turnstile
I never understood why anyone would shit where they live.
tinyhouse(1)
artichokes(2)
TL:DR Poverty is the true problem, and we need to think about things more holistically.
Here we are on HN, once again debating criminalizing poor people for not having opportunities, about if it's better to fine poor people or imprison them, treating those as solutions, instead of something just making the problem worse.
The problem is poverty. How come when we try to incentivize the rich, we give them stuff like tax breaks, but when we want to incentivize the poor, we punish them and take their money or freedom away?
People are so focused on if it's wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you, they don't ask if it's wrong to have something and not give it away to someone who needs it more than you do.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269557/gross-profit-and-...
Because it's not comfortably middle class Americans who have good paying jobs who are repeatedly shoplifting, it's poor people who don't have a significantly better options.
Treating their crimes as the most salient aspect of them by calling them thieves and criminals ignores their poverty, instead of treating it as a systemic societal problem which harms us all.
This wasn't a natural experiment in any case, pre/post the law, you can't blame the law for shoplifting, other variables weren't fixed and thus confound the results. I expect rent increases, increases in the prices of food and other consumer goods and so on have a much bigger impact on shoplifting. Even if you could, if it wasn't shoplifting it would be some other means of making ends meet.
Poverty, homelessness, food insecurity, these are problems our country absolutely has the means to address, and investing in stopping them pays dividends not just in higher tax revenues but in decreased crime.
And with that in mind, isn't it smarter to take some of the money dedicated housing prisoners, policing the poor, managing them through the criminal justice system, and using it to help them so they don't have to steal?
Here we are on HN, once again debating criminalizing poor people for not having opportunities, about if it's better to fine poor people or imprison them, treating those as solutions, instead of something just making the problem worse.
The problem is poverty. How come when we try to incentivize the rich, we give them stuff like tax breaks, but when we want to incentivize the poor, we punish them and take their money or freedom away?
People are so focused on if it's wrong to take something that doesn't belong to you, they don't ask if it's wrong to have something and not give it away to someone who needs it more than you do.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269557/gross-profit-and-...
Because it's not comfortably middle class Americans who have good paying jobs who are repeatedly shoplifting, it's poor people who don't have a significantly better options.
Treating their crimes as the most salient aspect of them by calling them thieves and criminals ignores their poverty, instead of treating it as a systemic societal problem which harms us all.
This wasn't a natural experiment in any case, pre/post the law, you can't blame the law for shoplifting, other variables weren't fixed and thus confound the results. I expect rent increases, increases in the prices of food and other consumer goods and so on have a much bigger impact on shoplifting. Even if you could, if it wasn't shoplifting it would be some other means of making ends meet.
Poverty, homelessness, food insecurity, these are problems our country absolutely has the means to address, and investing in stopping them pays dividends not just in higher tax revenues but in decreased crime.
And with that in mind, isn't it smarter to take some of the money dedicated housing prisoners, policing the poor, managing them through the criminal justice system, and using it to help them so they don't have to steal?
We can't give the poor tax breaks because, mostly, they don't pay taxes. The bottom 50% of tax payers account for 3% of income taxes[1]. Of course, there are other taxes like payroll, corporate income, and excise taxes - but I'd guess that the genuinely poor, say the bottom 5% or so, aren't paying much corporate income or payroll taxes either. This doesn't account for state or sales taxes, but according to this calculator[2] a single person making 12k a year would pay 72 dollars in state taxes in California.
You can get free health insurance if you're poor. You can get free food. You can get free shelter. You can get free education, including higher education. Being poor is, of course, no picnic, I'm not trying to say it isn't bad, but I think your post minimizes the extent to which our society offers opportunities to the poor.
I think it's much to worse to say "Okay poor people, you can steal, no consequences" and then step back and let a relatively small number of thieves destroy local businesses. Jobs, stores, wealthier law abiding citizens go away and now you've trapped the remaining poor in a much worse place to live - but hey, at least you didn't punish thieves for committing crimes, right?
1- https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-inco...
2- https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator
You can get free health insurance if you're poor. You can get free food. You can get free shelter. You can get free education, including higher education. Being poor is, of course, no picnic, I'm not trying to say it isn't bad, but I think your post minimizes the extent to which our society offers opportunities to the poor.
I think it's much to worse to say "Okay poor people, you can steal, no consequences" and then step back and let a relatively small number of thieves destroy local businesses. Jobs, stores, wealthier law abiding citizens go away and now you've trapped the remaining poor in a much worse place to live - but hey, at least you didn't punish thieves for committing crimes, right?
1- https://taxfoundation.org/summary-of-the-latest-federal-inco...
2- https://smartasset.com/taxes/california-tax-calculator
>TL:DR Poverty is the true problem, and we need to think about things more holistically.
Is there any empirical evidence for this? How come there are countries like Vietnam and China that are much poorer than the US, with much higher income inequality, yet have much less crime? How come in San Franciso there was less crime 50 years ago, 100 years ago, even though the city (and country) was poorer then?
Is there any empirical evidence for this? How come there are countries like Vietnam and China that are much poorer than the US, with much higher income inequality, yet have much less crime? How come in San Franciso there was less crime 50 years ago, 100 years ago, even though the city (and country) was poorer then?
Yes? as I understand it the general correlation between income inequality and crime is fairly well known, and the debate is on why it occurs and what can be done despite it. That said crime rates themselves are often more to do with reporting than with prevalence... IE if crime happens regularly people don't bother reporting it.
Okay, here's international correlations between income inequality and property crime .https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.86...
The best thing I could find for the time ranges you discussed suggests you are wrong about San Francisco, at least in terms of the last ~50 years and violent crime rates, which dropped 43% from 1975 to 2015. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/08/18/crime-in-conte...
The nationwide crime rate also went down during the same period, so I'm not sure that is really fair to your argument.
That said, more broadly here's evidence of a correlation between crime rate and income inequality, including property crime, using US cities that isn't time based. https://www.zippia.com/advice/crime-income-inequality/
Here's one showing that income inequality by neighborhood correlates to property crime rate. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004209801664391...
Here's a study about people on probation in San Francisco that shows that housing insecurity drive recidivism, and that that's particularly strong correlation for low level offenses like property crimes https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leah-Jacobs-3/publicati...
Anyway, This paper suggests that increasing wages among low income workers decreases crime https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/90836/1/wp0017.pdf
Okay, here's international correlations between income inequality and property crime .https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.86...
The best thing I could find for the time ranges you discussed suggests you are wrong about San Francisco, at least in terms of the last ~50 years and violent crime rates, which dropped 43% from 1975 to 2015. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/08/18/crime-in-conte...
The nationwide crime rate also went down during the same period, so I'm not sure that is really fair to your argument.
That said, more broadly here's evidence of a correlation between crime rate and income inequality, including property crime, using US cities that isn't time based. https://www.zippia.com/advice/crime-income-inequality/
Here's one showing that income inequality by neighborhood correlates to property crime rate. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/004209801664391...
Here's a study about people on probation in San Francisco that shows that housing insecurity drive recidivism, and that that's particularly strong correlation for low level offenses like property crimes https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Leah-Jacobs-3/publicati...
Anyway, This paper suggests that increasing wages among low income workers decreases crime https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/90836/1/wp0017.pdf
And that's really it. We've put to the people in ballot initiative after initiative to reduce crimes and penalties for 'nonviolent crimes', which people will happily vote with good conscious for because of the word non-violent.
But nonviolent to whom? We're forgetting that they're still crimes, that they add up and degrade quality of life, and can violently ruin lives without striking a blow. Whoever worked in these Walgreen stores now need to find a new job, and had they been small businesses, closing up shop could ruin their entire career. I had someone come into my garage in the middle of the night in December, who woke me up and I confronted him. He ran away, so it was technically a nonviolent crime, yet I couldn't sleep for weeks and haven't felt fully safe in my home ever sense. The psychological damage is done.
We have a tendency to focus on the criminals with open arms trying to reintegrate and not overly punish people, and completely lose track of the victims. And when there's no credible consequences for bad actions, criminals become emboldened.