Hacker News Reader

Comment by jkubicek | Hacker News Reader

> San Francisco, meanwhile, suffers the highest property crime rate in the country. Businesses like Walgreens have shut down numerous Bay Area locations due to “rampant burglaries.”

Hasn't the "we're shutting down this Walgreens because of rampant burglaries" been repeatedly debunked?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/is-shoplifting-forcing-wal...

View on HN

Funny that you read that article as “debunking”. All I see is a bunch of opinions (mostly partisan) and guesses, with the company itself not releasing any details. What are you reading that I’m not?

I also find it amusing that in this scenario, we are supposed to assume that crime statistics provided by the police are 100% accurate. Aren't we usually meant to believe that the police are the bad guys who lie about everything?

Here is a more nuanced, data-oriented analysis which concludes that Walgreens probably left SF for normal corporate planning reasons: https://applieddivinitystudies.com/sf-crime-2/

> Overall, it doesn’t look like Walgreens’ 2021 closure rate requires explanation beyond pandemic effects, their own 2019 cost management program, and broader economic trends. Additionally, it appears their 2020 closure rate was below, or at best on par with, their 2019 closure rate, indicating that the new DA, who took office at the start of 2020, did not accelerate the decline of Walgreens in San Francisco.

There's video footage of mass burglaries. I don't know what more proof you want.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

A: There is no evidence of X. B: Did you look for evidence of X? A: There is no reason to look for evidence of X when there is no evidence of X. B: There have been as-yet unsubstantiated reports and claims about X. A: These claims of X have been debunked. B: How were these claims debunked? A: They are unlikely. B: How did you come to that conclusion? A: There is no evidence of X, therefore they cannot have been likely. If X were likely, there would be evidence of X. B: How would you determine if there was evidence of X? A: If there were substantial reason to investigate X, it would have been investigated. There is no substantial reason to investigate X since there is no evidence of X. B: If a third party provided some evidence of X, would that not be substantial reason to further investigate if there is more evidence of X? A: There is no reason to investigate for evidence of X, since third party evidence of X is not believable. B: What would make evidence of X believable? A: If there was evidence of X, it would have been reported. B: But the evidence of X was reported! A: The reports of X are unfounded, since there is no evidence of X.

I strongly urge you to just stand in an SF Walgreens and watch how many people walk out the door with stolen goods. None of those incidents are reported, the security guards don't even bother getting up.

And why are people so staunchly in denial about crime in Seattle/San Francisco? Why do they seem to feel personally attacked?

Because a lot of the burglars are black, which means doing anything about it will be seen as racist. SF no longer release tapes of crimes that happen on public transit for the same reason.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/07/09/bart-withholdin...

Why is it about one's skin color? I thought we were past this.

We were, but society has resurrected it for cynical political reasons.

It often provides evidence that the politics they believe in doesn't have a solution to their community's problems thus it becomes personal. Crime is the most basic indicator of failures in policy.

A lot of us are transplants from the midwest/south/east coast and feel the effects of property crime are blown wildly out of proportion. But its different for everybody. I would rather lose a catalytic converter than a friend! https://vanlifewanderer.com/2021/12/03/cities-with-highest-m...

Crime reduces property value. If your main investment is your home, you are incentivized to pretend it's not an issue.

Moral narcissism.

People developed a sense of moral superiority over anyone that disagrees with their policy. So when the evidence is irrefutable and overwhelming shows their policies failed, they can't bring themselves to admit being wrong.

San Francisco is not in the top 10 most dangerous cities in the US. Yet article after article is written about crime in SF. I haven't seen anyone deny there is crime in SF. More just tired of the outsized attention it gets compared to more dangerous cities. I don't see article after article complaining about the DA of Baton Rouge or how Memphis's crime is out of control.

No, it was not debunked. These things actually happened and the reasoning for closure was as stated. A fair number of progressive people were unhappy about that and tried to write rebuttals, but they were wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com