On one hand, I'm always suspicious of businesses closing and citing outside factors, so I wonder if these were less profitable even without the thefts. But let's assume good faith.
Why, oh why, is this such a problem in SF and Oregon? Are police and the city really not pursuing charges against most of these thieves?
This seems like a failed opportunity for Walgreens to pilot some kind of "deposit" like gas pumps do. Walk into the Walgreens and run your card with a $75 deposit, or sign in with an ID, etc.
It shouldn't be politically partisan to say that widespread theft (much less theft for profit) is a bad thing for a community.
Sounds like you are very new to this extremely polarizing discussion.
This is the direct result of the provision that downgraded thefts under $1000 to a misdemeanor charge. Cops can’t be bothered to deal with most store thefts because in most cases arrests are not going to go anywhere.
Plus store security is not allowed to actively interact with thieves, which means they come in, take whatever they want and just walk out.
>Plus store security is not allowed to actively interact with thieves
This is a common misunderstanding/misrepresentation. Yes, most stores have polices against physical force but those policies exist to control a minority of security guards. I've worked private retail security/loss prevention before and the attitude of most of us was a very valid "why would I risk my life and health over a toothbrush someone is walking out of the store with?" It makes zero sense. It's not my property, any paltry bonus I may get is in no way worth my safety and I'm not a cop so I don't have qualified immunity. The only guard that would tackle you at the exit is the kind of guard that has a propensity for violence and took the loss prevention job because the police and military already rejected them. Allowing your LP staff to use physical force is not going to solve retail theft.
Eh,some people who work security/work in retail like to stand up for common decency in the neighbourhood and have a backbone so they confront the thief.
> Allowing your LP staff to use physical force is not going to solve retail theft.
Terms like common decency and backbone are words used in place of payment to dupe/guilt people to work for the benefit of someone else without fair compensation. You don’t need to use emotional arguments to get someone to do something they are paid fairly to do.
Theft is an economic issue. I shop in stores without armed guards everywhere because I don’t live in an area with an massive level of income disparity like San Francisco.
Terms like common decency and backbone are words used to describe how we should all be. People branding anything promoting social and personal responsibility for the public good - as negative, are typically part of the problem rather than the solution. Why didn't you go a tiny bit further and say "dog whistle"?
> "why would I risk my life and health over a toothbrush someone is walking out of the store with?"
Because it's your job, and because the outcome of not stopping it is the rotting of your community, as we see here.
Why have that job if it's revealed it is actually less than security theater?
I sense I come off a bit hostile, but "not doing anything" results in what we now see. And if your job isn't to stop theft, then what is it? Perhaps a job with physical dangers should get paid more and have better health benefits, but to say "not my job" removes pay from the discussion.
Is this a serious response? Why would you stop thieves while at your job doing exactly what you are hired to do?
By this logic, what is the minimum a thief should take for you to stop them? Should it be the amount close or equal to the monetary value you put on your life?
Are all products essentially free at all stores because they are worth less than your life?
> Ben Dugan, CVS director of organized retail crime and corporate investigations, also provided internal data at the hearing showing similar issues concentrated in San Francisco. There are 155 CVS stores in the Bay Area, including 12 in San Francisco; yet those 12 stores make up 26% of all shoplifting incidents in the region, CVS said.
> He called San Francisco "one of the epicenters of organized retail crime" and said the items are being stolen with the intent of selling them for re-profit.
Yup. It's common ignore theft under a number around $950. Technically it's a misdemeanor but they just don't seem to go after the criminal unless some video goes viral.
One friend witnessed a guy bring a handtruck into the pharmacy and cart out an entire display.
I can't speak for San Francisco, but I can speak for Portland. There's a lot that's going on that feeds into this. I've been trying to construct a workable narrative for myself, to help explain holistically why the city I live in has fallen apart so much in the last year and a half. This is what I've learned so far:
1.) The police in Portland were barely interested in dealing with property crime before the massive uptick in 2020. They'd show up...eventually, but they certainly weren't going to show up in time to stop anyone and any investigation was minimal.
2.) The newly elected DA in Portland is a strong believer in restorative justice, and avoiding incarceration when possible. He is also a vocal critic of the police, which has earned him their ire. This has created a circular animosity that manifests in the police not bothering to do their jobs in documenting and investing crimes, because they don't' feel like the DA's office are going to do theirs by prosecuting them.
3.) Judges in Multnomah County, where Portland sits, tend towards light sentencing.
4.) During COVID, the court system effectively shut down for a while. This generated an enormous backlog. The net effect is that there are many people currently awaiting hearings for very serious offenses, who in ordinary times would be in jail, but aren't because of jail capacity issues.
5.) Multnomah County has underbuilt jails for years, and doesn't have much capacity in the ones they haven't closed yet.
6.) Due to COVID, the courts are very reluctant to remand anyone to custody except in the most violent cases. There are numerous reports of violent offenders being immediately released because there's no room in jail while maintaining the recommended COVID guidelines.
7.) Recently Oregon, through a ballot measure, decriminalized user amounts of pretty much all narcotics. The jury's still out on how that's playing out, but it's looking like we may have inadvertently invited a lot of transient drug users to come live here.
8.) There's a massive homeless population in Portland. Almost every neighborhood has one or more encampments. It's not uncommon to see things like stolen and stripped cars, bikes, and other property concentrated around them, because theft is the primary way that these folks have made money.
9.) There's been a massive uptick in meth use across the western United States, which is going under reported because of the opioid crisis. The meth in question is industrially made in Mexico, using P2P as the base. This particular formulation of meth has a very different effect on users than previous formulations (which were based on ephidrine). Ephidrine based meth tends to make people euphoric and sociable, while P2P based meth tends to make people paranoid and aggressive, and in higher doses it mimics the symptoms of schizophrenia. Sam Quinones' new book "The Least of Us" goes into fascinating detail about all this.
10.) Oregon has an awful mental health system, which is way overburdened. The net effect of this is that a lot of people with behavioral problems end up on the street, where they co-mingle with the rest of the homeless population.
11.) There's been an enormous uptick in shootings in Portland, owing to a gang war between the West Side 18th Street, the Young Come Ups, and a few others. There was an inciting incident earlier in the summer where a member of one gang killed members of another at a memorial service, and it's been an escalating series of gun battles ever since. This has seriously overtaxed the police, to the point that in some shootings, one office has been left to process the scene entirely alone because the rest had to go to another shooting.
11.) Police are quitting, for various reasons that range from mask mandates to anger and solidarity that the DA prosecuted one of their own for use of force during the 2020 riots. Portland already had a very low per-capita number of police to begin w...
> 11.) Police are quitting, for various reasons that range from mask mandates to anger and solidarity that the DA prosecuted one of their own for use of force during the 2020 riots. Portland already had a very low per-capita number of police to begin with.
The fact that police would quit the force because one of them got held accountable for their actions is incredibly alarming and only feeds the ACAB mentality.
Indeed. The police have certainly earned a lot of the ire they're currently experiencing, especially in Portland.
I tried to keep this list as neutral as possible, and just report the facts as I understand them to be true. #13 and #14 include more of my own viewpoint, but I think those are broadly true statements.
Agreed. The other useful proposition I've heard is to make an inventory of all the things we use the police for that really aren't supposed to be a part of their jobs (such as mental health crisis response where there isn't a danger of harm to others), and create separate departments to deal with those. Then you can slowly transition to a point where the police are just doing police things, instead of being the catch-all for all the stuff nobody else wants.
Eugene, Oregon has been running a program called CAHOOTS for several years now, and Portland is starting to mimic it. It's basically a team of mental health professionals who roam the city responding to mental health issues that don't require an armed response. It seems to be working pretty well for them, and I think the model could be expanded.
I can understand it though. If you're a cop, and you know how close you've come to busting someone's head who has been shouting obscenities into your face for the past 10 minutes, you might feel its just a matter of time until its your turn to go in front of the judge. Maybe better to go somewhere else where the job is less stressful. Maybe take your family somewhere safer. Lots of good reasons.
There's a clear and obvious loop where people are addicted to drugs, needing money to satisfy that addiction, and pursuing dumpster diving and petty theft to cobble together enough money to buy drugs. Repeat every day.
The only way to break the cycle is to have a safe supply of prescribed drugs, an alternative to (often literally toxic) street drugs. This would mean that persons don't need to raise money to buy street drugs, which should reduce the related petty theft, but this is not the status quo "war on drugs" approach so it remains politically challenging for weak politicians.
The status quo continues where police pretty much don't have options other than to harass drug users and confiscate drugs, which only makes things worse as drug users with no money now have to raise more money yet again to buy more drugs, potentially stealing again.
The "tough on crime" path is often advocated by people frustrated and wanting to see police knock some heads around, but it leads to the unsustainable and wildly expensive absurdities of like jailing people for stealing deoderant and such incredibly minor crimes.
In the broad sense, a proposition like creating a safe supply of prescribed drugs makes sense. If I recall correctly, this is how the U.K. used to treat heroin addicts, until the war on drugs became a widespread practice. Vancouver, B.C. has also experimented with a vending machine approach to provide opioid addicts with a daily maintenance dose of legal drugs. However, I think there's a big catch: a policy like this needs to be implemented everywhere in a given country at once. Otherwise, the locations that do have it will become magnets for the entire country's population of addicts.
A few years ago, Multnomah County and the City of Portland started a program to guarantee housing for all homeless families. It had to shut down, after becoming overwhelmed by people from across Oregon, it's neighboring states, and across the United States generally [1]:
"More than 800 adults, representing about 500 families, answered the question. About 45 percent gave addresses in Portland or Multnomah County. Significant numbers said their last addresses had been in other cities in the Portland metro area that do not fund the shelter, including Vancouver, Beaverton and Oregon City. Smaller numbers said they’d come from communities across western Oregon, including Salem, Eugene, Medford and Seaside. And about one-third of the shelter residents reported their last permanent address wasn’t in Oregon. They came from dozens of states, including Alaska, Nevada, Louisiana, Texas and Virginia."
I can't imagine that the results of implementing a locally based legal drugs harm reduction policy would be any different. The United States needs policies like this applied at the Federal level if they are going to work.
The short of the video is that you need rehabilitation for these drug users AND you need accountability. When you pick up a drug user, you give them two options: rehab or jail. Fail out of rehab, go to jail.
Unsurprisingly, most people pick rehab. In either case, the problem is solved for the rest of society.
We give people the resources and help to solve their problem without letting them jerk the rest of us around. It seems like a fair compromise to me.
So, basically Free Drugs for Everyone is your plan? That doesn't seem to offer a solution to the waste of human potential. Why not include rehab and counseling to break the loop of drug addiction? Then you've helped the addict as well as the business owner.
Counselling and rehab is required in the long term, but it's a process to get people into that.
The advantage of prescribed safe supply is that drug users are now interacting with the medical system and this is a touch point where medical professionals can interact with drug users directly and divert people that are ready for counseling and rehab to those options.
You cover this a lot, but you also fail to mention that PPD is _notorious_, nation-wide, for its association with white supremacists and right wing groups.
There are incidents where PPD will agree not to arrest Proud Boys who have warrants out if they show up to protest.
Or where a Sergeant will tell Three Per Cent'ers that they're about to start firing off tear gas and rubber bullets in an area where they are clashing with "Antifa" or BLM. "Go hide in the lobby of this building and we'll send you a text when we're done gassing them so you can come back out and keep going".
Repeated, numerous times. And the very large majority of PPD doesn't even live there.
I wonder what the above could do to foster a "general culture of disrespect for authority"...
> This seems like a failed opportunity for Walgreens to pilot some kind of "deposit" like gas pumps do. Walk into the Walgreens and run your card with a $75 deposit, or sign in with an ID, etc.
I honestly think that the negative PR from that would be worse then closing the stores.
> This seems like a failed opportunity for Walgreens to pilot some kind of "deposit" like gas pumps do. Walk into the Walgreens and run your card with a $75 deposit, or sign in with an ID, etc.
Why is the failure Walgreens'? Forcing customers to show ID or provide a credit card would make for a horrible customer experience and inevitably lead to confrontations involving staff.
Maybe if communities where shoplifting has basically been sanctioned lose enough stores, residents will force change.
One specific detail that comes up is that Walgreens has specifically ordered its employees to not get involved. Some of the stores have dedicated security, but they tend to get overwhelmed and not all stores are covered all of the time.
The breakdown in enforcement is part of this. Much of the problem is related to the rest of the cycle. That is, even if there are still RFID tags on the stolen items they still get sold in bulk at local street sales and such. There is some hope that enforcement on that end will pick up as the $950 limit is easier to hit and demonstrate and there has at least in SF been some rhetoric about giving sellers and fences some enforcement which might help.
Another thing to keep in mind is that at this point many of those involved are more or less completely outside society. They don't have skills, jobs, housing, family, or traditional networks. That makes enforcement tricky since incarceration is nearly the only tool and that gives them free room and board as well as opportunities for networking and developing their criminal skills like lockpicking and gang organization.
That is interesting, but may not have much direct application in this case. The current situation is unusual and not much like the vast majority of shoplifting. San Francisco has an unusual social environment with a substantial population of transients and a significant history of limiting police powers, electing and directing public attorneys for lenience, and keeping a bare minimum of available incarceration capacity. My own anecdotal experience may be way off, but all of the actors I have seen involved with this in San Francisco are street people doing the shoplifting and immigrants doing the fencing and selling. This is not a completely wild accusation as others have also seen this pattern.
It’s also worth pointing out Walgreens, Apple, and other retailers usually do not press charges on the rare occasion when the groups are stopped or caught. This does not improve the situation.
Hell, they've got their own forensics lab to help make cases against theft rings that span jurisdictions [0]. They have a commitment from the top down to put as much pressure as possible on this type of organized crime. Back when Reddit had a shoplifting sub, users would advise others to just never steal from Target — mission accomplished, I think.
It’s really not that complicated, there are no deterrents against bad behavior in San Francisco and Portland. No consequences, and desperate people will break the law.
Either these cities step up and support their law enforcement and stop vilifying them or these problems are only going to get worse.
I know if I owned a shop in San Francisco I would have a gun at it as a deterrent.
I fled SF and California in 2018 in-part because of the crime, anti-police sentiment, and lawlessness.
45 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 99.7 ms ] threadWhy, oh why, is this such a problem in SF and Oregon? Are police and the city really not pursuing charges against most of these thieves?
This seems like a failed opportunity for Walgreens to pilot some kind of "deposit" like gas pumps do. Walk into the Walgreens and run your card with a $75 deposit, or sign in with an ID, etc.
It shouldn't be politically partisan to say that widespread theft (much less theft for profit) is a bad thing for a community.
This is the direct result of the provision that downgraded thefts under $1000 to a misdemeanor charge. Cops can’t be bothered to deal with most store thefts because in most cases arrests are not going to go anywhere.
Plus store security is not allowed to actively interact with thieves, which means they come in, take whatever they want and just walk out.
Lots of posts on /r/bayarea/ if you are curious.
This is a common misunderstanding/misrepresentation. Yes, most stores have polices against physical force but those policies exist to control a minority of security guards. I've worked private retail security/loss prevention before and the attitude of most of us was a very valid "why would I risk my life and health over a toothbrush someone is walking out of the store with?" It makes zero sense. It's not my property, any paltry bonus I may get is in no way worth my safety and I'm not a cop so I don't have qualified immunity. The only guard that would tackle you at the exit is the kind of guard that has a propensity for violence and took the loss prevention job because the police and military already rejected them. Allowing your LP staff to use physical force is not going to solve retail theft.
> Allowing your LP staff to use physical force is not going to solve retail theft.
It's going to massively reduce it.
Theft is an economic issue. I shop in stores without armed guards everywhere because I don’t live in an area with an massive level of income disparity like San Francisco.
Because it's your job, and because the outcome of not stopping it is the rotting of your community, as we see here.
Why have that job if it's revealed it is actually less than security theater?
I sense I come off a bit hostile, but "not doing anything" results in what we now see. And if your job isn't to stop theft, then what is it? Perhaps a job with physical dangers should get paid more and have better health benefits, but to say "not my job" removes pay from the discussion.
By this logic, what is the minimum a thief should take for you to stop them? Should it be the amount close or equal to the monetary value you put on your life?
Are all products essentially free at all stores because they are worth less than your life?
> Ben Dugan, CVS director of organized retail crime and corporate investigations, also provided internal data at the hearing showing similar issues concentrated in San Francisco. There are 155 CVS stores in the Bay Area, including 12 in San Francisco; yet those 12 stores make up 26% of all shoplifting incidents in the region, CVS said.
> He called San Francisco "one of the epicenters of organized retail crime" and said the items are being stolen with the intent of selling them for re-profit.
They really aren’t.
One friend witnessed a guy bring a handtruck into the pharmacy and cart out an entire display.
1.) The police in Portland were barely interested in dealing with property crime before the massive uptick in 2020. They'd show up...eventually, but they certainly weren't going to show up in time to stop anyone and any investigation was minimal.
2.) The newly elected DA in Portland is a strong believer in restorative justice, and avoiding incarceration when possible. He is also a vocal critic of the police, which has earned him their ire. This has created a circular animosity that manifests in the police not bothering to do their jobs in documenting and investing crimes, because they don't' feel like the DA's office are going to do theirs by prosecuting them.
3.) Judges in Multnomah County, where Portland sits, tend towards light sentencing.
4.) During COVID, the court system effectively shut down for a while. This generated an enormous backlog. The net effect is that there are many people currently awaiting hearings for very serious offenses, who in ordinary times would be in jail, but aren't because of jail capacity issues.
5.) Multnomah County has underbuilt jails for years, and doesn't have much capacity in the ones they haven't closed yet.
6.) Due to COVID, the courts are very reluctant to remand anyone to custody except in the most violent cases. There are numerous reports of violent offenders being immediately released because there's no room in jail while maintaining the recommended COVID guidelines.
7.) Recently Oregon, through a ballot measure, decriminalized user amounts of pretty much all narcotics. The jury's still out on how that's playing out, but it's looking like we may have inadvertently invited a lot of transient drug users to come live here.
8.) There's a massive homeless population in Portland. Almost every neighborhood has one or more encampments. It's not uncommon to see things like stolen and stripped cars, bikes, and other property concentrated around them, because theft is the primary way that these folks have made money.
9.) There's been a massive uptick in meth use across the western United States, which is going under reported because of the opioid crisis. The meth in question is industrially made in Mexico, using P2P as the base. This particular formulation of meth has a very different effect on users than previous formulations (which were based on ephidrine). Ephidrine based meth tends to make people euphoric and sociable, while P2P based meth tends to make people paranoid and aggressive, and in higher doses it mimics the symptoms of schizophrenia. Sam Quinones' new book "The Least of Us" goes into fascinating detail about all this.
10.) Oregon has an awful mental health system, which is way overburdened. The net effect of this is that a lot of people with behavioral problems end up on the street, where they co-mingle with the rest of the homeless population.
11.) There's been an enormous uptick in shootings in Portland, owing to a gang war between the West Side 18th Street, the Young Come Ups, and a few others. There was an inciting incident earlier in the summer where a member of one gang killed members of another at a memorial service, and it's been an escalating series of gun battles ever since. This has seriously overtaxed the police, to the point that in some shootings, one office has been left to process the scene entirely alone because the rest had to go to another shooting.
11.) Police are quitting, for various reasons that range from mask mandates to anger and solidarity that the DA prosecuted one of their own for use of force during the 2020 riots. Portland already had a very low per-capita number of police to begin w...
The fact that police would quit the force because one of them got held accountable for their actions is incredibly alarming and only feeds the ACAB mentality.
I tried to keep this list as neutral as possible, and just report the facts as I understand them to be true. #13 and #14 include more of my own viewpoint, but I think those are broadly true statements.
That's how defund should work. Start funding a properly functioning department, and starve the other one.
Eugene, Oregon has been running a program called CAHOOTS for several years now, and Portland is starting to mimic it. It's basically a team of mental health professionals who roam the city responding to mental health issues that don't require an armed response. It seems to be working pretty well for them, and I think the model could be expanded.
The only way to break the cycle is to have a safe supply of prescribed drugs, an alternative to (often literally toxic) street drugs. This would mean that persons don't need to raise money to buy street drugs, which should reduce the related petty theft, but this is not the status quo "war on drugs" approach so it remains politically challenging for weak politicians.
The status quo continues where police pretty much don't have options other than to harass drug users and confiscate drugs, which only makes things worse as drug users with no money now have to raise more money yet again to buy more drugs, potentially stealing again.
The "tough on crime" path is often advocated by people frustrated and wanting to see police knock some heads around, but it leads to the unsustainable and wildly expensive absurdities of like jailing people for stealing deoderant and such incredibly minor crimes.
A few years ago, Multnomah County and the City of Portland started a program to guarantee housing for all homeless families. It had to shut down, after becoming overwhelmed by people from across Oregon, it's neighboring states, and across the United States generally [1]:
"More than 800 adults, representing about 500 families, answered the question. About 45 percent gave addresses in Portland or Multnomah County. Significant numbers said their last addresses had been in other cities in the Portland metro area that do not fund the shelter, including Vancouver, Beaverton and Oregon City. Smaller numbers said they’d come from communities across western Oregon, including Salem, Eugene, Medford and Seaside. And about one-third of the shelter residents reported their last permanent address wasn’t in Oregon. They came from dozens of states, including Alaska, Nevada, Louisiana, Texas and Virginia."
I can't imagine that the results of implementing a locally based legal drugs harm reduction policy would be any different. The United States needs policies like this applied at the Federal level if they are going to work.
[1] https://www.opb.org/news/article/portland-oregon-homeless-ch...
The short of the video is that you need rehabilitation for these drug users AND you need accountability. When you pick up a drug user, you give them two options: rehab or jail. Fail out of rehab, go to jail.
Unsurprisingly, most people pick rehab. In either case, the problem is solved for the rest of society.
We give people the resources and help to solve their problem without letting them jerk the rest of us around. It seems like a fair compromise to me.
The advantage of prescribed safe supply is that drug users are now interacting with the medical system and this is a touch point where medical professionals can interact with drug users directly and divert people that are ready for counseling and rehab to those options.
You cover this a lot, but you also fail to mention that PPD is _notorious_, nation-wide, for its association with white supremacists and right wing groups.
There are incidents where PPD will agree not to arrest Proud Boys who have warrants out if they show up to protest.
Or where a Sergeant will tell Three Per Cent'ers that they're about to start firing off tear gas and rubber bullets in an area where they are clashing with "Antifa" or BLM. "Go hide in the lobby of this building and we'll send you a text when we're done gassing them so you can come back out and keep going".
Repeated, numerous times. And the very large majority of PPD doesn't even live there.
I wonder what the above could do to foster a "general culture of disrespect for authority"...
I honestly think that the negative PR from that would be worse then closing the stores.
Why is the failure Walgreens'? Forcing customers to show ID or provide a credit card would make for a horrible customer experience and inevitably lead to confrontations involving staff.
Maybe if communities where shoplifting has basically been sanctioned lose enough stores, residents will force change.
The breakdown in enforcement is part of this. Much of the problem is related to the rest of the cycle. That is, even if there are still RFID tags on the stolen items they still get sold in bulk at local street sales and such. There is some hope that enforcement on that end will pick up as the $950 limit is easier to hit and demonstrate and there has at least in SF been some rhetoric about giving sellers and fences some enforcement which might help.
Another thing to keep in mind is that at this point many of those involved are more or less completely outside society. They don't have skills, jobs, housing, family, or traditional networks. That makes enforcement tricky since incarceration is nearly the only tool and that gives them free room and board as well as opportunities for networking and developing their criminal skills like lockpicking and gang organization.
> Another thing to keep in mind is that at this point many of those involved are more or less completely outside society.
Actual research on shoplifting suggests that the vast, vast majority of shoplifters are working or middle class: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248967286_Who_actua...
Hell, they've got their own forensics lab to help make cases against theft rings that span jurisdictions [0]. They have a commitment from the top down to put as much pressure as possible on this type of organized crime. Back when Reddit had a shoplifting sub, users would advise others to just never steal from Target — mission accomplished, I think.
0: https://corporate.target.com/article/2012/02/an-unexpected-c...
Either these cities step up and support their law enforcement and stop vilifying them or these problems are only going to get worse.
I know if I owned a shop in San Francisco I would have a gun at it as a deterrent.
I fled SF and California in 2018 in-part because of the crime, anti-police sentiment, and lawlessness.