Interesting you post an article where it's stated
Well, there is another reason that the Police data may not be accurate. In 2014 voters in California Passed Prop 47 which basically decriminalized theft if the total value of the theft is $950. So stores don't detain shoplifters anymore, because if they do, the Police won't respond. The Police won't respond because the District Attorney won't prosecute because it is no longer a felony.Interesting you post an article where it's stated
- "Police department data, local officials, and policy experts are casting doubt on that reasoning"
- Additionally "the chain has experienced retail theft, other factors like the COVID-19 pandemic and oversaturation of stores were cited as potential factors behind the decision to close the stores."
- "San Francisco Police Department data obtained by the Chronicle contradicts Walgreens' claims, with one of the stores slated to close reporting only 23 shoplifting incidents since 2018. Some incidents of shoplifting likely go unreported, but the closing stores had on average less than two shoplifting reports per month since 2018.
- The Mayor doesn't appear to buy the reasoning
- It's stated in the article a reminder that several years ago Walgreens already advised they would be closing several hundred stores (and it is being said some of these closing were long preplanned to be closed)
Sounds like your article isn't really backing up your thread
Sounds like a splashy reasoning being used but evidence not there
When I took Criminology in college, I learned that the vast majority of shoplifting (even that which the proprietors are aware of) goes unchallenged and unreported. There are many reasons, including potential liability for errors or too-aggressive-pursuit, and the negative public image created by a caught shoplifter making a scene (this was always an issue, but is undoubtedly much more of an issue in an era when a shoplifter with a protected status can get widespread sympathy on social media). And of course, plenty of shoplifting isn't noticed until the shoplifters are gone, because surveillance by employees isn't constant. It's easier to close a store that is experiencing a lot of shoplifting, than to try to challenge or control the shoplifting.
No reason to do a report. If the District Attorney won't prosecute, and with most stores threatening to fire employees who detain shoplifters, it's as if it doesn't happen. It has been a huge source of frustration in my community. Customers try to stop shoplifters and employees tell them to let them go because if the employee gets involved, they could lose their job.
There won’t be a shortage of retail in San Francisco because there’s a high concentration of wealth there
I've worked in retail, I've seen shoplifting, I've been called by loss prevention before to watch out for people (like one time people switching tags), I've had "here's where people like to stash the price tags when they steal the stuff (aka behind the mirror in the dressing room or even more clever the ceiling tiles in the dressing room where you'd have to step on the bench to reach it)", etc.
Yes you mentioned that before. I would assume if that's interacting with the lack of police reports on a significant level someone would have mentioned it or at least advised that was a large contributing factor.
That reminds me of Hawaii. They have an ABC store like every block. Walk 2 mins sometimes and there's another one. Walgreens did state they would do "a review of the real estate footprint in the United States.”
Well, the person writing the article didn't do their homework. But I suspect it may have only been one factor in the closures, not the entire reason. But at least here, Walgreens are a shoplifting magnet. The one closest to me keeps getting hit by the two same women. The employees are not allowed to even call the police. But our Neighborhoodwatch folks always manage to get stills from the security camera.
