Are they rewarded for arresting drunk people?
So, the poor will be criminalized regardless of whether they steal, what’s their incentive not to steal? From their perspective, they’re already criminals for not being rich, why not act like it?
Add to that the fact that most plots of land were illegally seized and resold. So from a moral perspective the landowners in SF are criminals too.
The city needs to take those issues seriously before they can reasonably expect the poor to cease their mischief. Without a navigable legal framework for the poor to subsist, and without a property court committed to restitution of stolen land, I don’t see how we can in good faith demand people refrain from stealing iPhones.
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/
In 2016 it looks like property crime actually decreased.
SF has the highest per capital property crime rate among the nation's top 50 cities: http://sfist.com/2016/04/25/sf_now_has_highest_per_capita_pr...
I wouldn't be so quick to blame changes in laws, though. In my experience, property crime is up because the police don't do anything when they get a report of a theft or burglary. If there's a fight, drug deal, or even just a drunk person stumbling around, the police will be out in force. If somebody got robbed, well, good luck, they'll take your statement and then you're on your own.
Now, perhaps that has to do with incentives and the police knowing that the offender isn't going to jail even if they pick him up for burglary. But it seems like there could still be a healthy middle ground where property crime offenses still result in fines, restitution, community service, and probation without needing to lock kids up in prison.