Organized retail criminals are making the most of San Francisco’s urban chaos | Hacker News Reader

Organized retail criminals are making the most of San Francisco’s urban chaos

nationalreview.com

35 pointsBostonian55 comments

> Some of the stats say property crime is actually down in San Francisco, but that is probably a reporting issue, because some store managers have stopped bothering to waste their time filing police complaints.

Seems like these stats could have done with a more rigorous investigation, given that they contradict the thesis of the article?

National Review is an American conservative rag that extends a long tradition of American conservative editorialism in the style of William F. Buckley. It would still be pushing for racial segregation were it allowed to.

No, I'm sure that the current writers do not secretly yearn for racial segregation. If you read it you would notice that there are some non-white contributors, such as Deroy Murdock and Ramesh Ponnuru.

There are people who steadfastly believe minorities cannot or should not be conservative. Witness the reactions to the black lieutenant governor of Virginia vs other minorities being elected to office. The former gets accused of being a black white supremacists because she’s conservative and mr Blackface got a pass because he’s a white liberal. Had he been the same person but been conservative or libertarian he’d have been cancelled… but no, not in this case.

The mayor of Detroit too. He won a write-in campaign against a progressive. Now Democrats are trying to strip him of some of his appointments because he's a little too conservative for them and not progressive enough.

That doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not the National Review is a broadly racist newspaper.

If you're looking for a broadly racist newspaper, check out the New York Times.

I'm not looking for a broadly racist newspaper, a total non sequitur on your part.

I'll take non sequitur snark over ad hominem lies any day.

Where's the lie? William Buckley was a proud white nationalist[1] and the magazine he founded continues to publish all kinds of blandly racist content and anti-semitic content (and authors)[2].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F._Buckley_Jr.#Views_o...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Review#Controversies

The lie is that they are racist today, not 50+ years ago.

The examples in that list of controversies are weak to say the least. In each case that could vaguely be considered racism or antisemitism, the higher ups at the magazine issued a rebuke and often dismissed the writer. Is this really all you got?

Meanwhile, the NYT posts shit like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/11/opinion/sunday/interracia...

People are loath to believe that minorities might be conservative, so they use all kinds of racist tropes and tools to present them as the actual bad thing.

Look at former racist house representatives who were Democrats but renounced their racism. It's as if they never espoused racist views. But if they had been conservatives, then by definition they could never disavow their racist past and would for ever be racists.

Still no idea what any of that has to do with the National Review being a racist newspaper. Absolutely rabid stuff old chap.

They are saying that if you have to judge the NR by who founded it, and assume they have the same beliefs now as they did back then it only makes sense to apply that same logic to the democratic party since it was notoriously extremely racist at the exact same period Buckley was advocating for segregation.

It would be silly to say the DNC is still what it was in the 1950s, since "organisations change and it was 60 years ago" but the comment you're replying to is arguing that we only give that sort of benefit of the doubt when it's convenient politically. Buckley wouldn't be relevant otherwise here, and every single "older" newspaper would be a conservative rag if we were to go by what's been published or said by their founders.

No, that's not what he's saying at all.

I, for one, continue to think that those people are probably still racist. But the public sentiment is perfectly reasonable, given that they belong to the contemporary American party that has fewer (not zero!) white nationalists in it.

But it’s still not clear what this has to do with the National Review.

We're speaking of the same National Review in which William F. Buckley wrote about the gross superiority of the white race in "Why the South Must Prevail"? [1]

https://adamgomez.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/whythesouthmus...

That was in 1957. Almost every long-lived publication has taken positions in the past that would now be considered reprehensible.

Is this an excuse for the remarkably reprehensible views of the National Review?

For context, you probably want to also cite

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/05/13/william-f...

From Politico, no less. Bill is remembered by those who lived through those times for doing good rear-guard work in civil rights in the 1960s when it really counted.

White people are not the only ones capable of being racist. A good many people of color look at how pervasive white supremacy is and decide their local maximum is to align with the white supremacists. Internalized white supremacy is a bitch.

It's usually white people accusing minorities of being "internalized white supremacists" though, and I can't think of anything more patronizing to minorities than that. Especially since it's usually whenever a minority does something they don't agree with ("they are going against their own self interest which should be to agree with me") so it completely reeks of white saviorism. I'm not saying that's what you are doing here, it's just that in my own experience it's rhetoric that is almost always used in a way to shutdown any criticism/dissent (and very rarely from someone who is part of a minority). A good example of that would be how non-whites are quickly labeled "low information voters" when they don't toe the party line.

Obviously everyone can be racist or bigoted, regardless of race but that doesn't mean they are internalizing white supremacy whenre they aren't white, it just means they are racist. Its weird to make everything all about white people and the whole concept is increasingly sounding like a way to cope with bruised savior egos.

That’s the complexity of race in the US though. Your average African American person’s ancestry contains a whole lot of European ancestors too; in many cases more European ones than African ones. Who counts as white and who doesn’t, and in what context?

We all have internalized white supremacy, regardless of our skin color. It’s just that the definition of “white” changes situationally (e.g. Italians weren’t considered “white” until the mid-1900s, rather they inhabited the “brown” space that south Asians and Hispanics currently do). But the internalized part is that we generally consider what is “white” to be the better outcome.

Other interests often supersede a naïve outsider calculation of self-interest. For example: Log Cabin Republicans, Caitlyn Jenner endorsing Trump (before conceding it was a mistake while continuing to follow the party line), me voting for Democrats even though I know that they will, at best, hold the line against oblivion while grassroots organizers do the real work in the space created by that line.

In Seattle we don’t report properly crime except if insurance requires it. Police can’t be bothered to show up so it’s just a huge headache. I think they just have you fill out your own shit online anyway. I would assume sf is similar.

Naturally that discourages reporting and drives crime stays down

Even when you fill out the online police reports they'll often reject it for whatever reason that they want to, and then force you to call it in if you really want it submitted.

When there is police and/or prosecutorial inaction[1] in respect of a crime, why would you expect the statistics of that crime to do anything but go down?

[1] Here's an interesting question - how does police/prosecutorial inaction in cases of shoplifting compare to police/prosecutorial inaction in cases of other crime? Is it more? Is it less? Is it the same?

A recurring theme in these conversations is that the lack prosecutorial interest in prosecuting minor crimes intrinsically results in decreased police action, presumably because the police lack the motivation to enforce laws that they don’t believe will be fully discharged in the courts.

But I don’t understand why this is a necessary relationship: the political incentives of the police are such that it always makes sense to make crime rates look as bad as possible (since more crime means more police funding). So we’d expect them to continue to make arrests, even if those arrests don’t result in a convictions. But that isn’t happening, and nobody has produced a particularly satisfying explanation other than “the cops are depressed.” Which, in turn, strikes me as a larger indictment of the police than of the DA.

> But I don’t understand why this is a necessary relationship: the political incentives of the police are such that it always makes sense to make crime rates look as bad as possible (since more crime means more police funding). So we’d expect them to continue to make arrests, even if those arrests don’t result in a convictions.

Honestly that doesn't make any sense (I dunno, maybe english is not your primary language).

1. You're correct that it always makes sense for police to make crime rates as bad as possible.

2. $FOO is *NOT RECORDED AS A CRIME* if the apprehended suspect is not convicted.

So your assertion that:

> So we’d expect them to continue to make arrests, even if those arrests don’t result in a convictions.

is completely and totally incorrect in every sense of the word and under even the broadest possible interpretation.

Why would a LEO make (for example) 100 arrests in a week if every single one of them *WOULD NEVER BE RECORDED AS A CRIME* due to prosecution not getting a conviction?

> But that isn’t happening, and nobody has produced a particularly satisfying explanation other than “the cops are depressed.”

I just gave you one now; a guaranteed no-conviction of shoplifters in turn guarantees that LEOs would rather spend their efforts on making their numbers.

English is my first language! Sorry if my phrasing is confusing.

> 2. $FOO is NOT RECORDED AS A CRIME if the apprehended suspect is not convicted.

This is not true in any municipality that I'm aware of. For example, the NYPD's CompStat[1] system publishes weekly and monthly crime reports based on pre-conviction arrests. That information isn't considered guilt-presumptive, because it doesn't assume that any particular arrested person has committed a crime -- it's an agglomerated statistic.

Given that crime reporting data doesn't require convictions, it's not clear to me that your counterpoint holds.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompStat

> $FOO is NOT RECORDED AS A CRIME if the apprehended suspect is not convicted.

I'm not sure this is completely correct... In my home town, the police used to send a list of arrests to the local paper, who would print all of them in the weekly issue. How many of those translated into convictions was something I wouldn't even know how to find out, but they certainly were able to publicize their arrest rate.

What the hell is that opening story? Some weird homeless fanfic about how nice it must be to toss all the free stuff the benevolent dude-bros give you because you're mentally ill and can just steal from stores. And why open with that if your story is about organized gangs of thieves?

Read the whole piece

I did. They blame the dude-bro for voting poorly, which is also dumb. That doesn't explain the bizarre jealous dismissal of homeless people.

So, this sounds pretty grim, but I'd be curious to hear from any SF residents if things look like this at all to them. If we were lucky enough to have an actual employee or owner of a business in SF, that would be even better. Is this article a fair depiction of reality in SF today?

I visited SF a few weeks ago. I went to a Safeway and the entire aisle where the toothbrushes were located was behind locked see-through panels. Other aisles weren’t as bad. It was rather disorienting.

Another patron and I had to be escorted around the store so we could complete our short shopping lists.

I didn’t read the article so I can’t compare but I’ve never seen a store lock up that much of their product.

During the pandemic, crime has shifted from preying on tourists to hitting big box businesses. Particularly pharmacies like CVS/Walgreens and high value items at grocery chains. It’s indeed a problem, but vastly blown out of proportion by folks who want to paint the picture that liberal governance is making SF fall apart. It is expensive to live here, but the quality of life - access to culture, food, green space - is hard to beat if you can afford to live here.

Homelessness remains a problem (particularly in the tenderloin) where tent encampments and drug use are a real issue. This isn’t news though (despite “shocked” op-eds in conservative media outlets) and has been endemic for years if not decades. Also not unique from other big cities that have good year-round climates.

Theft under $950 in California is a misdimeanor due to Proposition 47.

https://www.courts.ca.gov/prop47.htm

Meaning that if you get caught, you'll get a fine, community service or a tiny amount of jail time... that is, if they even bother spending resources arresting and prosecuting it.

Notably, it also applies to forgeries. So if someone forges a fake check for $950 that's a misdemeanor too.

What is the penalty in other places?

Felony. Which implies not only years of prison, but fines, restitution (compensating the victim for the loss) and probation.

Not true. Has to go over $1,000 to be felony - and that's coming from a red state here in the midwest. This red state is even talking about raising that limit because it was set in the 70's and hasn't been adjusted for inflation. Last I heard they were thinking about $5,000, but I don't think they've done anything. One of the things they'e done is made it the lesser of retail value and wholesale value. You may have stolen $1,500 worth of goods, but it cost the retailer $900 so you're still not committing a felony.

The cut off point where shoplifting becomes a felony varies by state, but I don't think any state would consider stealing razors a felony for example.

What about forging a check for $950?

I don't know the cutoff point for all 50 states. I would assume cost of living means California has one of the higher caps but the other poster seems to live in a state where the cutoff is $1000.

In Houston we had this exact problem. Most of the stores around our house, (Museum District), switched to shopping carts that won't move if you push them out of the parking lot. That cut down on a lot of that activity.

They should get those shopping carts in SF.

They have them in Trader Joe's lots on 9th St. I'm not sure they cut down on theft since it's easy to decant them into a backpack or car and not exactly optimal for a quick getaway.

I'd love to hear some anecdotes from SF residents. Do you see these gangs operating? How do people react? Have you had stores close near you due to theft?

My local Safeway (a grocery store) switched to using carts with long poles that can’t leave the store. But I don’t know of any stores that have closed?

Some Safeway stores in SF have reduced opening hours due to shoplifting.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/579386-san-francisc...

It really is as bad as it sounds. A couple anecdotes:

- Some people without homes pitched a tent on the sidewalk nearby, blocking the sidewalk. The city has a moratorium on clearing tents. I recently walked by and the tent had been consumed by fire, leaving charred furniture and camping equipment behind. It’s been there for a good week now.

- multiple times I’ve seen folks grab armfuls of goods and run out. The staff just watch (I don’t blame them.) as a result, most medicines, alcohol, or other things of value (Tide!) are behind locked barriers.

- my local Safeway has armed guards, but somehow this doesn’t deter about a half dozen folks from loitering outside. Occasionally one will try to get in and make a run for it. Somehow this doesn’t effect the whole foods across the street.

- many streets downtown, including blocks on market, are open drug markets: folks dealing, preparing, and consuming drugs. You literally have to step over passed out bodies.

The whole city has a apocalyptic vibe right now. I’m not clear what the cause or solution to these problems are. But I’m kinda sick of people pretending that it’s normal. It isn’t.

My mom came from abroad recently to visit. She was horrified and I was embarrassed that she had to see all this.

I can believe it. I stopped attending conferences in San Francisco. My last conference was in 2017 and I told my boss then I'm never going back. I've had several friends vacationing in SF going back to the 90's and they said they'd never go back and I always said they were over reacting (I've been going to SF on a regular basis for the past twenty years). Not anymore. The homeless were all over the sidewalks and they had added a new feature - aggressive dogs! People follow you into cafes and stand in line behind you and beg for food (which was already 1.5x-2x priced compared to anywhere else in the country). The BART station smells like a latrine. I could go on.

> The whole city has a apocalyptic vibe right now.

Yes - that's a good way to describe it and that's how I felt. It was unreal. Mind you I regularly visit NYC, Chicago, and Washington, D.C. They're all model cities compared to SF. I can tell you one thing - no job is worth living in SF. I'd either find another job or work remote and live elsewhere.

Tide laundry detergent has been an underground currency in the illegal drug trade for years.

https://nymag.com/news/features/tide-detergent-drugs-2013-1/

I’m not clear what the cause or solution to these problems are.

That's what the article is about. Surely the causes and solutions are obvious?! How is this a mystery? The residents voted for that situation!

Rampant property theft and homelessness in SF predated Chesa Boudin and the ballot initiative the article mentions.

I’m not convinced that changing those two things will be a panacea to SF’s problems.

I couldnt get through this article because it is so uncaring towards unhoused and struggling people.

It’s refreshing to read a piece of reactionary tripe that feels like it was plucked right out of the nineties. If you’re too young to remember, it was journalism like this that brought us “superpredators” and the Clinton/Biden crime bill. Makes me feel young again.

None of which is to say that there isn’t a crime problem in San Francisco — there obviously is. But read this article very carefully, the style is insidious. This is a rushed out opinion piece masquerading as a deeply researched exposé.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com