Rampant shoplifting leads to another Walgreens closing in S.F | Hacker News Reader

Rampant shoplifting leads to another Walgreens closing in S.F

sfchronicle.com

65 pointsundefined133 comments

Native, here; drained of progressive values after witnessing and living reality. Thefts got waay worst after lost of security then Covid lockdown. They had a security guard on a some sort of tricycle Segway before. Felt safer, seniors shopping no problem. Then security left and things worst. I remember the complaints from the long time long haired POC clerk BUT shelves were full. Then Covid. The last time I was there, I was shocked at the empty barren shelves. Franklin store also hit hard. And the poor clerk this time new face, probably temp, had the same sad, what can we do? Absolute impunity. Seniors and poor shoppers suffer; people discarded because they don't make the headlines. People who run the show or like to talk or shout BS, don't even visit the Tenderloin except probably for a PR shoot. As for the addicted, mentally ill and homeless, we see them suffer too, everyday. Well at least they can ride MUNI for free. Suffering all around, unless you're in a gated community or outer districts. Money won't solve the problem. Back in the day, we had 5150 at least. Can you imagine running a business now in this environment? Raising children? So much for the "radical change to how we envision justice" Gee I wonder why businesses board their shops with all this overflowing peace, love and compassion in the city? Well, at least not the tall multi million luxury condo skyscraper where the former Goodwill stood.

I've been in really poor places all over the world, all alone and on my own. None scared me like that one street in SF, the tech capital of the world. I genuinely felt like I was about to get hurt, right here in plain daylight, just walking through. There was unimaginable misery wherever I laid my eyes, for what seemed like a kilometre long stretch of road.

I didn't expect the source of so much wealth to be this bad.

Agreed, I felt safer in Acapulco.

I live near an affected Walgreens and the shoplifting has made it effectively unusable as a store. They are always out of almost everything. I asked a cashier why they hadn't restocked and they told me that they are restocking normally but people are stealing all the stuff immediately. I have seen several thefts while shopping there; the shoplifters are brazen and unhurried and take armfuls of merchandise. Walgreens seems particularly hard-hit and I don't understand why they aren't investing in security.

I don’t understand the supes and don’t know why people voted for the DA.

In a couple of years people will complain that this and that neighborhood are some kind of “desert”. Unfortunately that’s their own making. No business is going to survive rampant theft.

It’s like they actively want to alienate the population enough that they get voted out and try the opposite. But, so far in SF the answer to social issues is “even though we’ve tried all the progressive cures, we obviously haven’t been progressive enough and must double down” only to make things worse.

I'm certain they did an analysis and realized that it's cheaper to cut their losses and close shop. If the law isn't likely to change, and the law enforcement isn't likely to step-up, then what's the point of hiring private security? Most private security is just there to look tough and hold you until the police arrive. And the police aren't effective right now, so why even bother?

I could imagine some intermediate before flat out closing the store. For example, you could make guests wait in a reception area and ask an employee for the things they want and have that person grab them. It's slower and less discoverable and private, but you would still make sales

They have a cookie cutter business model. Unless it’s a mom and pop that customization cannot work for a chain store.

They already seem like they are locking more items behind the plastic theft guards, so the logical extreme would be to lock everything that way, at least for items that are commonly stolen.

the one that closed near me had a security guard at all times. I suspect not only did he feel that he wasn't paid enough to try, there wouldn't be much point in trying to detain all of hunter's point.

I stopped shopping there before they closed, because it always took 30 minutes to find the right key to unlock the shampoo.

I don't know why SF stores in bad neighborhoods don't just adopt the east coast shitty neighborhood corner store model. full wall of 2" lexan, and a turnstile to pick up your fifth and cigs.

Some places are banning that full wall of 2" lexan, saying that it is discriminatory. My fading memory recalls that it was Chicago or Detroit, or somewhere vaguely near there, but it sounds like the kind of thing that San Francisco would do.

Wtf not wanting to get robbed is “discrimination” now? We are lost.

In a lot of cases, the security guard can't actually do anything about a shoplifter -- they're not allowed to touch them or detain them, usually for fear of prosecution.

This is why places like Target will first build a case before detaining a shoplifter; They want to make sure they have enough proof to cover their asses legally.

Isn’t this just an easy and cheap way to wind down and have insurance pay for everything?

You don’t have to pay additional staff to be able to monitor a store. You don’t have to pay for additional security. And you don’t have to put in effort to sell your product.

Just let people steal stuff, and cover 60-70% in insurance quickly and easily, as opposed to spending weeks and months trying to offload product using massive discounts, which would probably negatively impact sales at other stores and online.

I don't think that drug stores have an insurance policy that covers shoplifting. Who would offer such a policy if they knew there were going to lose money? Or if such a policy was offered, wouldn't the rates be greater than the losses? I guess I don't know for sure, maybe there is some sort of a corporate reimbursement. Are you guessing, or do you know more?

The various Walgreens I’ve been to in Oakland generally do have a uniformed security guard.

Perhaps they could have a service counter, like the grocery stores in the old days?

A Walgreens in Alameda just closed for the same reason. There are videos of people brazenly emptying the shelves even while on camera. Former employees said that they couldn't do anything about the thefts except watch and that it was a factor in the closing (it also had the least foot traffic of the ones in Alameda).

I'm fairly certain Nob Hill in Alameda is lining up for the same fate. Sometimes I'll go in there and certain shelves are bare. The employees have said people walk out with shopping carts full.

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/09/03/alameda-police-seek-...

It blows my mind (as a 3rd worlder). Here almost all stores have security, and they're not just going to stand by and let you walk out.

Other stores have checkpoints at the exits and they'll verify your purchases.

Others will only let in certain amounts of people etc.

If the people's behaviour changes then you need to adapt accordingly.

This kind of Walgreens closure in urban areas is not limited to SF. I wonder if maybe the business itself is struggling for other reasons, and they're using this as a cover for closing down the more toxic locations.

It's certainly both.

But absolutely no retail store can operate in a political climate where they are unable to enact reasonable loss prevention policies. Walgreens and stores like it are especially hard hit because they are generally well stocked/capitalized, and ubiquitous even in rougher areas of town. They also are corporate owned (not franchised) and thus have exceedingly "hands off" loss prevention policies. Word gets around.

If I were CEO of Walgreens I'd likely be making the same decision. A single instance of an overzealous security guard getting into a fight or killing a shoplifter will erase any profits you'd make in years of keeping 100's of marginally profitable stores open.

I've worked in such retail environments and it's pretty discouraging to the workers trying to do the right thing and live the correct way. When I was in such roles it was quite some time ago, and the current climate was only starting to shift - it was still completely acceptable back then to tackle a shoplifter in the parking lot and forcefully detain them until the cops came.

The morale hit employees took when they simply have to sit back and watch is hard to measure, and I'm certain damages these communities in ways we have not even begun to understand. Simply saying it's "not worth your personal liability to protect corporate profits" rings really hollow on a societal level as society stops working when all that binds us are rarely enforced laws.

What is the govt's plan here? Is this just a way to win more progressive votes regardless of actual collateral damage to communities?

Are they showing that they will not prosecute crime because it was morally justified by an oppressed, impoverished population that only wants to feed itself? And is stealing from corporations is a valid form of restitution?

Well, I hate to start a political digression, but here goes:

The borderline unliveable nature of many parts of SF (and increasing now) are a direct and foreseeable product of the city's overly tolerant approach to crime, the homeless population, and all the enablers of that over the last decade. The city had chances to set itself up better to survive this situation, but it squandered the time.

All of the policies that contribute to high housing cost, "neighborhood preservation", unwillingness to rezone and push out the festering drug dens of the city. All in the name of nebulously defined "equity".

Better to have a crime-ridden neighborhood that preserves some grandma's barely-scraping-by corner store than to have a safe neighborhood with, god forbid, some new young people who have jobs. All of the money and tax revenue spent on useless services for the incurably drug-addicted, instead of preparing the city and its infrastructure and economy against a downturn. All of the policies that excuse people from following some of the rules and tradeoffs of a civilized society. As if you can provide enough counseling sessions for someone to not break into your car.

What the city is experiencing now is the payback for its years of inaction and unwillingness to put in place harsher and more orderly policies. You see now that everyone is fleeing SF because you don't live there longer than you have to, unless you're really rich or own your own condo. The empty apartments for rent are 10-deep on Zillow.

It costs too much to staff the police properly, and they get criticized if they arrest someone, so you basically only get a cop to show up if you've been stabbed. Unreasonable people protest every time you try to clean up a homeless encampment, so the garbage just shifts from 7th street to Cesar Chavez, to your next favorite corridor the following week.

It costs too much to staff Bart and Muni at a reasonable rate (or even check that people pay the fare), so you have people getting stabbed and shot on trains that are absolutely foul, and they wonder why ridership is so low. Supervisors are incentivized more to appear on camera saying they support BLM than actually doing things that make those lives matter in the neighborhoods. Let's promote looting and protest, and then regret later what it caused.

You build up points to cash in as a city when you really need it, and to make life better in regular times. SF wasted it all.

Keep in mind that "preserving neighborhood character" is likely a way to cover up voting against new construction by existing landlords in an attempt to keep their net worth rising with each year by restricting supply. Artificial supply restriction leads to prices going up in desirable areas. Of course there is going to be a breaking point at which the area is no longer desirable, but I don't think we're anywhere near that in SF despite what they doomsayers like to claim in 2020.

Wouldn't you vote the same way if you could make one of your biggest assets beat the market consistently every year?

It's the usual tragedy of the commons.

I always found it impressive how SF landlords successfully weaponize poor immigrant communities and financially unstable youth to campaign against their own interests in service of the wealthy.

I broadly agree but I’ve also heard that despite how terrible it is now, apparently it was even worse a few decades ago, with gangs controlling large swaths of the city and the mission being super dangerous.

The restoration of evidence based cause/effect reality is going to be a hard pill to swallow for many communities, I think.

If you look at the behavior of many groups, they have long held beliefs that the costs of their chosen behavior should be borne by the wider community.

Now that people have decided to not suppress these behaviors, the results are becoming evident much more quickly. Any person/business not interested in living in close proximity will simply leave.

After a couple such cycles, they’ll leave - and begin to demand evidence of positive behavior on individuals wishing to enter their new communities...

Fun times are coming.

My local CVS was looted multiple times and shoplifted from an uncountable number of times. The store was closed for weeks (or months?) and the pharmacy never reopened.

The biggest beneficiary of all this would be Amazon.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com