Truly spitballing an answer to this. A car window replacement is probably a few hundred bucks ($200-500), I imagine there are some instances with some really high value (greater than $1k USD, think a laptop) takes but there's also probably a ton of small hauls (loose change, stereo) or unsuccessful takes. I'd guess the average probably couldn't be more than a thousand bucks a break in, on average. This means this back of the napkin math puts car break-ins in that area costing probably not more than $30M, not including some insurance overheads and what not.

So judging by off the napkin math on costs and optimistically assuming stronger enforcement would lead to 50% less car break ins, if strong enforcement costs more than $15 million is it worth it? When does the cost of enforcement become inconsequential to the results? A good question to debate on either side IMO.

Even if a single police officer costs $1M a year all-in (which I'm significantly high-balling, I hope), I imagine 15 police officers hired specifically to work on car break-in cases would make a huge dent. The car thieves keep doing what they're doing because they know the police won't track them down. Even some minor efforts to start tracking them down could act as a powerful deterrent.

That's not really the point, though. It's not just a simple monetary calculation. Even if the true value of repairs and stolen items was $30M, I would allocate several times that of taxpayer money just for the quality of life benefits, assuming it would do some good.