We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14879325 and marked it off-topic.

Gotta love this attitude, which is widely shared by Bay Area media and law enforcement.

- "You shouldn't have parked there. "

- "You shouldn't have left anything visible in your vehicle."

- "You shouldn't have left anything invisible in the trunk, either."

As for "key right next to house" how else do you propose letting agents show your property to prospective buyers or tenants?

In SF, property crimes don't matter. I once had a road rager shoot at me and blow a window out in my car. SFPD response? "We can't find the round (bullet), so we'll just give you a case number (and no further investigation)."

Edit: typo

> As for "key right next to house" how else do you propose letting agents show your property to prospective buyers or tenants?

Give the letting agent a key to hold on to? Use an electronic keypad lock? Perhaps in your specific situation those are not feasible, but it’s not like there aren’t alternatives.

- "You shouldn't have been driving a car without bullet proof glass"

Yeah, this attitude in the Bay Area has also befuddled me too. Its the victims fault.

Bear in mind that local governments view property crime as a form of economic stimulus.

You'll be spending money to replace the stolen items, presumably some of that locally, and on repairs, presumably all locally. Meanwhile, whatever money the criminals get back in selling the stolen items (and subsequent profits by their fences) will also presumably be spent locally.

I mildly subscribe to this believe too, however it's more likely the police in (highly populated?) areas don't have the time / budget to thoroughly investigate everything.

Properly crime + little evidence = contact you're insurer thanks have a nice day.

  little evidence

No evidence collected != little evidence present.

I bet pretty much every thief leaves fingerprints now; police haven't taken prints for pure property crimes in years. (In contrast, SJPD did take prints for a car break-in in 1986).

Every week, you hear of a neighborhood getting hit by a gang, with 30+ vehicles affected -- total losses well into the felony range.

A gang could be shut down in a month if bait cars with GPS-tracked bags were used. Same with front-porch package thefts (always rampant).

A literal broken window fallacy example. Amazing.

It's not quite as fallacious. The negligent window breaker does not profit from the broken window.

It is the policy of San Francisco to annoy and harass car owners into switching to bicycling and public transit. Why would the city undermine its own policy goals by going after people who help deter driving and car ownership? It would make more sense to pay the people who smash car windows than it would to lock them up.

What do you expect them to do? It wasn't someone you know, it wasn't someone who has a personal motive to kill you, and they don't have any way of determining the owner of the gun.

Would you want to bother investing the case where someone in SF shot at a car and no-one was injured.

Also, give the agent a key and/or get a key box with a pass code and give that to the agent. There really is no excuse to hide a key on the property these days.

That's a serious pain. :/ Glad you weren't shot, though.

(Is "road eager" auto-correct for something?)

"road-rager", I'd guess.

road rager, sorry. Specifically, Dodger fans leaving the Giants game.

What about all the houses with doors that won't stand up to a sledgehammer?

Or unbarred windows.

There's a big difference between forced and unforced entry.

I wonder, what would be the charge in this situation ?

Brute forced entry

Beyond the "un", what's the difference in San Francisco?

Quite a few burglars only do unforced entries.

Unforced entry and taking a small number of objects from cupboards / filing cabinets / draws / jewellery boxes could go unnoticed for days or weeks.