In that wikipedia article, sort by "Larceny-Theft" descending. San Francisco is number 2 per capita.

The issue with San Francisco is that, like this author reported, you see so much brazen property crime, in broad daylight with tons of people around, in otherwise upscale and/or touristy areas. Most of the crime in other cities is concentrated in bad neighborhoods (that is pretty much what makes a bad neighborhood bad).

Years ago I was in a packed Starbucks in a somewhat touristy area of SoMa, when a guy came in and pulled a gun on someone working on a laptop closest to the door, just grabbed his laptop (ripping the plug out of the wall socket) and ran, and there were tons of people on the street.

> The issue with San Francisco is that, like this author reported, you see so much brazen property crime [...] in otherwise upscale and/or touristy areas.

This is, in fact, the problem: that crime in SF isn’t as concentrated on the disenfranchised underclass as the elites prefer it to be.

You're missing that the data in that page is from 2017, and Chesa Boudin didn't become DA until 2020.

George Gascon,the DA at the time, was also a so-called "progressive DA".

The problem with looking at crime rate statistics is that they only tell you about reported crime levels. If everyone knows that a petty theft, or a mugging, or a minor assault isn't going to be investigated or prosecuted then people stop bothering to report it.

This is referred to as the "dark figure of crime" by sociologists (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_figure_of_crime) which sounds a bit like a description of Batman.

If a city stops prosecuting crime, do you think people are:

A) more likely to report crimes, or

B) less likely?

How does this affect crime statistics?

You're "missing" that San Francisco's policies (and to a degree California's as a whole) are always used as political footballs. Whatever the perceived issue is, it's always clearly due to [insert controversial policy and/or politician here, whether the controversy is genuine or imagined] and a sign of why San Francisco is always [the way of the future|an object lesson to others].

I'd really like to see somebody claiming right now that Chesa Boudin's policies and their results are "the way of the future".

Compared to Medellín or Fallujah, it's probably even more safe. But I don't go to these places either. And compared to, say, just going to the beach, going there is much more dangerous, with pretty much zero benefits - even if I don't get mugged (which I most likely won't - I don't have anything valuable on me and I don't look like somebody inviting to be messed with) I will just end up being pissed off about how disgusting it all became. And then there's a risk they break a window in my car just because, if I go in a car. Or I step in somebody's poop. Why would I need all that trouble?

Have you actually been to Medellin?

It's a fairly safe city and even safer than most American cities.

This isn't the city of the 90's Pablo Escobar anymore.

Fallujah is probably doing alright ever since the Islamic State was expelled from there.

Sort by theft and that's just the reported number. We experienced theft about once a year. Never bothered to report.

Most people don't file a police report when their $300 bike is stolen yet again or their car is broken into for their phone charger.