SF's crime debate turns nasty

Re:SF's crime debate turns nasty by supercanuck on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @06:48AM (#27759536)

>So I’d suggest that part of the reason reported incidents have decreased is that stores don’t bother. They aren’t reporting shoplifting to the police because nothing happens. They just hope their employees don’t get punched and the losses balance out.

>And frankly, lately they haven’t.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SF's crime debate turns nasty by PicassoCTs on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @07:07AM (#27759655)

So the actual data is in the store closures and areas that are abandoned? Store-rent in those areas would go down?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SF's crime debate turns nasty by the-dude on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @07:12AM (#27759682)

In general there is a very strong incentive for the landlords/owners of commercial property to keep it empty instead of lowering the rent.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SF's crime debate turns nasty by hugh-avherald on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @07:39AM (#27759907)

Rent is not generally affected by vacancies.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SF's crime debate turns nasty by adolph on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @07:53AM (#27760018)

Interesting proposition. Given that existing leases are not affected, do you mean that owners would rather take a tax loss than potentially be locked into a lower rent?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SF's crime debate turns nasty by L-four on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @08:01AM (#27760094)

Many landlords are highly leveraged and reducing the monthly rent by even 10% would reduce the on paper value of the property to such an extent to put the property into negative equity.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:SF's crime debate turns nasty by PicassoCTs on Wednesday July 07, 2021 @09:07PM (#27767492)

Asking for theft insurance prices for a store in the area? No action without reaction. If its not entirely virtual, there must be traces.

[ Parent | on HN ]