That was real and everyone can agree on that based on what they see as well as the data. However you can't go to a single SF neighborhood and find people that think crime has dropped recently. There are boatloads of articles about people having their cars broken into so often they leave them unlocked because replacing windows was so expensive. Videos of people shoplifting while security stands by and does nothing because of the laws. Articles about criminals that kill someone but had been in and out of the system for years with fairly severe crimes but always let off by a rouge DA or out on bail (or without bail because bail is racist).
> That was real and everyone can agree on that based on what they see as well as the data
It’s a pretty well-observed fact (opinion polls etc) that most people across the country think crime has been going up over the last few decades, even as the crime rate has been going down.
So I don’t think “just ask people what they think” is a sound approach here. Most people are just wrong on this point.
That said I’m open to the general causal chain we’re discussing here; I’d just like to see some actual data on prosecution rates and crime reporting in SF.
Maybe if the CVS/Wallgreens/etc took a different tactic. Don't let people inside. Take orders online or line outside, deliver or pick up at the door. Distribute more intelligently.
> Public institutions should actually do their jobs, or we should stop having to pay for them
There's been a rather noteworthy series of protests over the past summer on the subject of whether or not it's worth it to pay for some of these institutions.
What about only letting in people in who have phones attesting to a unique id.
Don't let in people without a device and ban people who are caught stealing once. If they force the doors and come in call the cops and prosecute for felony burglary even if they were only originally banned for stealing socks originally.
Share bad lists and stealing socks means that you are suddenly banned from every store in 100 miles.
Make exceptions for curbside pickup and pre scheduled trips to the grocery store/pharmacy where you will pay for the security that will walk around with you.
Expire people off the list after 5 years of one theft or never after a string of thefts.
For the normal customer nothing happens your phone silently attests from your pocket that you aren't on the list by pinging a service and retrieving a token not sharing your info with the store.
Losers here an alarm sound and a voice telling them to buzz off on penalty of jail.
Forcing your way into a place to commit a crime is automatically a felony in almost all states. This is true even if the planned crime would be a misdemeanor.
That's exactly my point. But once we have a prosecutor who actually prosecutes criminals, then the crime levels will reduce without needing the phone ID system.
No one considers that perhaps ever-increasing inequality in the Bay Area has also increased both the incentive to commit crime and the disincentive to prosecute it. It would stand to reason that the people who are desperate would be more desperate than ever, while the people who are well-off would be more able to eat the costs than ever. No one is happy but the dynamic is grotesquely sustainable.
Why unvoting? Of course it would be too easy for themselves justifying their actions blaming inequality, but if in some place life isn't sustainable for others but the super-rich... That's of course going to push people to commit more crimes.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/sf-da-announces-homici...