SF property crime: 57.01/1000
SF median home: $1,195,367
SF per-capita income: $64k
NYC property crime: 18.64/1000
NYC median home: $1,126,049
NYC per-capita income: $73k
Palo Alto property crime: 22.88/1000
Palo Alto median home: $2,363,833
Palo Alto per-capita income: $89k
Chicago property crime: 32.48/1000
Chicago median home: $272,043
Chicago per-capita income: $34k
So SF has worse property crime even though it is on-par or poorer than NYC and Palo Alto.
But, if you’re confusing the point, clearly median income isn’t the only factor. Palo Alto is 2,712.65/sq mi where San Francisco is 18,790.74/sq mi. It’s over the hump where you don’t get poor people begging etc. Similarly, manhattan effectively segregates the rich an poor in a way that San Francisco doesn’t, but wealth very much is a factor when comparing San Francisco to similar areas.
The average house in Riverdale Chicago is worth less than the average car in Silicon Vally. People there make less money from armed robbery than someone can shoplift from a Silicon Valley Apple store. So shockingly with different risk/reward payoffs you get more property crime instead of armed robbery.