The videos you’ve seen are probably cherry picked for maximum outrage, but less egregious behavior is common. If you commute via public transportation, you will have to deal with crazy smelly drug addicts on a weekly basis. If you leave your bicycle locked up outside, there’s a good chance it will be stolen or vandalized.
I’m so glad I moved. I only regret not doing it sooner.
I don't need to cite statistics to know how dangerous SF is. I've lived there an experienced it. I've also been to Atlanta, Chicago, and Houston and felt much safer.
First step to fixing a problem is admitting you have one and San Francisco even refused to do that.
Statistically, these things didn’t happen to you.
But the locals are pissed.
The police may be understaffed but it's not budget issues or anything - it's because they've made their job unattractive by letting the bad apples spoil their reputation. The entire staff of 59 (about that number) traffic enforcement officers was found to give out on average only 10 tickets a day. That's not each, that as an entire department in a city with rampant traffic violations at all hours. The SF pd has been caught on camera watching places get robbed and not moving in until the thieves already leave. Two of their officers are currently being prosecuted over destroying evidence that they supposedly destroyed because cataloging it would take too much work.
You get the picture, the SF PD bad apples have really made the police force dysfunctional and unable to hire.
The police were wildly successful at shifting the blame to the prior DA, but the DA wasn't the problem. That DA is gone and nothing changed.
Theft is absolutely not “legal” but it is true that police don’t investigate everything equally. Someone stealing shampoo from a store isn’t worth the cost of a police investigation, for example. More concretely, there was a recent policy from an old politician to essentially not focus on prosecuting “crimes of desperation” if they didn’t have a big impact (eg under $300). There’s some side affects to that, like increase in petty thefts, or the perception that they’re not being stopped.
I think there’s some unique issues like package theft that are probably pretty bad and probably structurally hard to solve. SF has a lot of townhomes and residential buildings that have a door on the street so stealing packages is probably easier than in suburbs or denser cities that have big building with mail rooms.
In SF, the homeless population is very concentrated, and it makes many people feel unsafe. Statistics show it’s not particularly dangerous, nor are you likely to be a victim, but that is cold comfort for someone walking alone at night. I personally understand that sentiment and there are places I feel uncomfortable being, which is a pity.
I also think there’s a large cohort of people in SF for a job, but not because they like the city. I think that leads to being easily disenchanted and grumpy with the city. Especially when those people disproportionately live in the above mentioned sketchy areas (eg soma).
Also SF is literally known for being tolerant for generations. At one time, the hippies were just a local drug using homeless population here.
eg. Carjacker gets apprehended in neighboring county, wildly different outcome https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U_PAWJNrG8
Make of that what you will.
You're talking about Prop 47, and the number is $950. There's some pretty widespread misconceptions about Prop 47, first of which is that theft under that amount is not "legal" - it's just a misdemeanor instead of a felony.
But I think something much more important to recognize is that this law is hardly a uniquely Californian affair. Texas, of all places, has an equivalent law, except its limit is $2500 - higher than California's: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/08/09/what-s-the-pun...
Also, worth mentioning that Walgreens, which was generally the franchise most known for citing SF crime while closing stores, later backpedalled those concerns: https://www.axios.com/local/san-francisco/2023/01/09/walgree...
That said, SF does undeniably still have one of the highest larceny theft rates in the future, and it has plenty of work to do on that front. But you'd be right to be skeptical of anecdotal evidence that the city is outright dysfunctional. At the very least, you shouldn't believe anyone who states SF's problems are the fault of any single simple cause, whether that be Prop 47 or Chesa Boudin.
So what, if it is not enforced? Good luck getting away with that in Texas or almost any state or likely many other areas of California.
> But I think something much more important to recognize is that this law is hardly a uniquely Californian affair. Texas, of all places, has an equivalent law, except its limit is $2500 - higher than California's: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2017/08/09/what-s-the-pun...
Unlike in Texas, misdemeanors aren't taken seriously at all in California (i.e., the charges are usually dropped), to the point that things that don't reach the bar of being a felony are de facto legal.
This way any theft/shoplifting that skips checkout is an automatic felony.
If the city want's to f##k you with b#llsh#t number juggling, you do the same to them.
I assumed it was scaremongering after seeing comments saying that theft was legal in SF up until the $300 point (the number might be incorrect, can't remember exactly) but then saw some articles popping up saying lots of big franchises like CVS were shutting their stores due to rampant theft. But from where I sit (in Australia) it seems so bizarre to allow theft like this I struggle to believe it is real.
Can anyone on the ground confirm?
As a bit of contact I spent 1 year in Texas and loved it (and loved seeing all th sights and other states too) but no way would theft like that be tolerated there.
Why are locals so tolerant of this type of crime? I can't imagine they like crime more than people anywhere else so why aren't they protesting or something?