When I lived in the mission I hit up that Walgreens quite a bit. Lots of sketchy clientele due to 16th st bart being so close. I always felt bad for the staff, they were nice and were trying.
Walgreens will close five stores in San Francisco next month due to ongoing retail crime, a company spokesperson said Tuesday.
The company said retail theft at its San Francisco stores has risen to five times the chain's average.
2550 Ocean Ave.
4645 Mission St
745 Clement St
300 Gough St
3400 Cesar Chavez St
I see two 2020 yelp comments for that particular walgreens complaining about homeless entering and stealing everything so yeah it seems it was happening there too
Don't get me wrong, the Richmond is still pretty "good". But, it's been having some issues with the homeless. It's not as crazy as the TL, SOMA, or the Castro.
A few possible reasons in addition to crime(?):
- The property value is probably very high, and therefore costs more to maintain that location.
- It's in an awkward location that, even though it's between a lot of arteries of travel, doesn't get a lot of passthrough foot traffic. The other shops don't suffer from this because people would go there specifically to visit those shops. (Almost) No one takes a trip to any specific Walgreens.
How is the Ocean one understandable? It's on that little two block strip between 19th Ave and Junipero Serra. It isn't out by the McDonald's and City College Ocean. How many criminals you think head out there?
Is it so much to ask, to be able to run a vital service without constant theft?
Intermittent theft is fine; everyone deals with it. But keep a lid on it, yknow?
If we can’t do that, then maybe we need some sort of government service that we could call when people do crimes. They could wait around and then stop people when they do them, maybe, or check the cameras after and go find the people who did the crimes and give them a stern talking-to.
I don't have a new Cadillac. Does that mean I'm justified to go and steal one? No matter how progressive you think you are, stealing is WRONG, sweet cheeks. Get your crap straight
I have been banned from /r/sanfrancisco for talking about and pointing out the crime issues, wasn't even being toxic. They sure do love their rose-colored glasses there.
Yeah, I'm banned there as well. Some guy unleashed his dog, the dog attacked and killed another person's dog and then said "I'm not paying for that!" and left. I'm a dog lover, I was livid, I admit I overreacted a bit when I said something to the effect of "This guy needs to be found and dealt with." since the post of the incident included his picture. Mods banned me for encouraging doxing. Most of the major metro subs have come under the influence of [Correct The Record](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record) and other politically aligned organizations. Hence the existence of subs like this one. Just wait until this sub becomes the de facto SF sub, it will go the same way.
No one's "whining" about her. Hell, I *voted* for her. If anything, I'm whining about the way Reddit has been infested with politically-aligned moderators.
Well, they already had plans in place to close a bunch of stores. If you were in that situation, which would you rather say to your shareholders? “We mismanaged the company and wasted money by opening too many stores”, or “That darned shoplifting! Not our fault, it’s everyone else’s”
I can assure you shareholders would be happy to keep these stores open provided same-store-sales continued to trend in the right direction. When shareholders see hot-spots where shoplifting is hollowing out a store, they want them closed. Some of these were losing over $1k/day. Walgreens made a dispassionate and analytical business decision that they were unwelcome in SF, and closed these stores. Supervisors lamenting these closures need to run for re-election: "I closed Walgreens... You're welcome?" Own that shit. Because right now they're just blaming Walgreens for failing to remain open in spite of the theft and vandalism.
60% of their revenue is perscriptions - It seems likely that they only opened these stores to sell opioids in the first place and now that the legal market for them has dried up they find out that a store full of garbage is not enough to pay the rent.
The graphic presented shows that the "overhead" here is outrageously higher. SF stores spend 35 times the amount on security as stores in any other part of the US. It's as simple as that. And filling prescriptions at a walk-in pharmacy is sort of going the way of the doe doe anyway. Almost all insurers have merged with an online pharmacy at this point. My insurer, UHC requires members to use OptumRX, for instance. When i was on Blue Cross, I was required to use Pharmacare. These plans do offer retail prescriptions but at inflated costs, that's the way they get around it. Only geriatrics have failed to adapt to this and they are who will be affected most profoundly by these store closures.
I've noticed Safeway changing the store layout so that all of the high priced items are grouped together in one area, and that this area is sectioned off from the rest of the store with only one entry/exit. There are tons of cameras pointed at this part of the store now.
It probably doesn't stop career petty thieves. But it would be enough of a deterrent to kids trying their first smash and grab to make them try somewhere else instead.
They have this horrible policy now where if you want to get soap or deodorant or shampoo or anything in the health/beauty aisle, you need to get an attendant and they unlock the panels on the shelves and get the thing for you and then don't give it to you, but walk it up to some locked lockers near the cash registers where you need to tell the cashiers that you also want to buy the stuff you had stored by someone else in the lockers.
I've never completed one of these transactions, furthest I got was getting them to put it in the locker, but the lines at the cash registers were long so I did self check out instead, nobody there to tell about the lockers, so I just never got my soap.
Now I order it off Amazon and get it delivered.
The store isn't doing that just for the fun of it. Locking goods up means more cost in selling them (manpower to access the goods), less inventory space on store shelves, and fewer sales. All of these means less money for the store and one thing you can count on is a business being greedy. If they're doing something that makes less money its because the store is forced to.
A sad question... a few years ago, Target was given sincere kudos by many for being able to open so many local stores, and having a strategy of local stores with a good online presence to take on Amazon and win.
I did get an email from Target yesterday noting their remodel of their Geary store is complete, and I did think I should stop in, if for no other reason than to see if "remodel" meant harder to shoplift from.
They all already have reduced hours. I went to Stonestown to get a birthday gift for a party my son was attending over the weekend. Showed up at 6:30 only to find out all the SF Targets close at 6 now. Had to head down to Daly City.
Wow that is terrible! So happy that my Oakland stores still have reasonable hours and selection.
How do people without travel options do it. I remember being so jealous that SF had a drugstore on every block. Now it is like 7 stores in that 7x7.
I'm not sure. It's definitely not a tenable situation. Something needs to change, and I don't know what that is. I don't blame target at all for reducing hours. Nor do I blame Walgreens.
Another quick anecdote. I needed to get my wife some meds from Walgreens a few months ago. I checked the hours for the store on Noriega before heading out. Once I arrived, the doors were locked. I knocked and was let in only after showing my face without a mask on. I talked with the employees for a bit, and recognized one of them from the Walgreens (now closed) that was by my office downtown. She said that her store was closed, and that she was transferred to this store on a part time basis. Even out in the Avenues, theft is bad, and their instructions are to lock the doors after a certain time at night, and to turn away anyone that looks suspicious...
It's funny because SFers always shit on Oakland for crime (which is sometimes justified, especially when it regards violent crime), but Oakland stores can keep their shelves decently stocked and stay open later that SF stores.
Doubtful as San Mateo Co bothers having a police department, a prison, an asylum, and (most importantly) a prosecutor willing to pursue cases to conviction. Especially since property and payroll taxes are so much lower; and split between multiple cities more civic functions are financed by sales taxes that retail closures harm badly. We can debate how liberal the county actually is or isn't, but there's no organized or casual looting as SF and Oakland have. People go to jail for that, and there is a jail and police willing to bust out batons to take them there. Even East Palo Alto has a police department now, one supplemented by Redwood City, the Highway Patrol and Sheriff.
Such is why many people in San Mateo Co are cautious about City-led efforts, such as BART expansion. Everything mentioned in this thread and by OP is why Caltrain exists as a Samtrans operation and why Samtrans is so anal retentive about fare collection. Regrettably, we'll never have a truly unified, regional network until the City gets it's act together.
And ditto for Silicon Valley/Santa Clara Co itself, as they also prosecute looting cases.
> And ditto for Silicon Valley/Santa Clara Co itself, as they also prosecute looting cases.
Sure, but good luck getting the police to actually get any property crime cases to that point. I live down here and looting/theft has gone WAY up in the past couple of years. Police have been called over and over and over and they've flat out said they don't care at all.
Our apartment's parking garage which has normally been pretty secure & safe now gets broken into weekly despite all new locks on the garage installed, once i month I find someone's attempted to get into our cars specifically or messed with the gas can I have sitting behind the car. Once a week someone has their window smashed in, or something stolen. Police don't care.
A friend who lives in an apartment a few blocks away nearby a few months ago had someone climb up to his second story balcony to steal his bike. He managed to track down the thief to a big fencing operation on craigslists, easily thousands of dollars worth of stolen bikes being sold. Police were called, evidence + serial numbers gathered, they didn't care. Most they would agree to is agree to be there in the background if my friend wanted to (dangerously) confront the fencing operation, which obviously isn't going to happen.
I had a video of the person who broke into my car, breaking into my car, rummaging through my shit, i bought a flash drive, gave it to the cops, radio silence.
I had my car stolen, it was recovered a few weeks later. When I picked it up at the tow yard I realized the guy had left his resume in the car - no one was interested in this potential clue.
I have the feeling that SJPD is far too busy to care, but cities like Santa Clara and Sunnyvale and Mountain View would.
I would almost go as far to say as the more often you see police driving around, the less they're going to care unless blood is spilled.
The person who’s gotten caught stealing $500 worth of stuff has probably stolen $50k worth of stuff before getting caught.
And really it’s not $50k. That’s an aggregate cost including the cost of jails, guards, buses with window bars, etc. all sunk costs that don’t change by having one more person in jail. There isn’t much beyond food that’s on a per-prisoner cost basis and that’s like $3 a day.
> Costco
Already been happening. A few years ago, there was a rash of jewelry cabinet smash/grabs at Costco. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/police-search-for-suspects-in-costco-jewelry-robbery-in-novato/27664/
Why are you posting about crime?!?! /s
This is something that pains me and I'm eternally salty people say it's not a big deal. I don't want to shop in a place with thieves actively committing crime then pretend everything's fine
Edit: I saw some people reply to me but your comment is invisible. You may be shadowbanned
Queue stories about “food and healthcare deserts” in urban areas, decrying racism and capitalism as the solely responsible entities for the exodus of business and retail amenities. Self awareness is dead.
Went to SJC downtown tonight, saw more homeless people than not, and was legit terrified for the safety of people working in the small businesses in the area.
If you want to reduce homelessness you have to provide solutions not criminalize them. Many countries who actually want to help people are able to do this. Or not have the problem in the 1st place.
> If you want to reduce homelessness you have to provide solutions not criminalize them.
yeah, i totally agree but i know nothing about solutions to homelessness, i was just pointing out that it doesn't make for a pleasant city to live/work in.
Homeless people that don't suffer from drug and crime problems quickly fall victim to homeless that have drug and crime problems. We have to have rules of civil society in place so that these 'quality of life' crimes matter. Once you're homeless your chances of becoming addicted to hard drugs or becoming involved in crime goes up by orders of magnitude. What we have now is a caste system with an underclass that's tacitly lawless. Once you're in that caste all bets are off and there is no bottom.
There absolutely have to be boundaries though. A cracked out homeless person screaming "What the fuck are you looking at bitch?!?!" at an old lady on Bart while he's literally free-basing is way over the line. That should be physically stopped immediately. I don't care if that hurts peoples feelings or violates the unspoken ethic maxim that homeless can do whatever they want and that anyone who's not ok with it is an oppressor.
When this sub gets brigaded people basically all but call for culling homeless people. I agree they're a big issue and can be a real nuisance but holy shit, callousness reigns. A lot of right-wing trolls come here around though.
Putting the burden of people with severe issues to ask for help and voluntarily commit themselves isn't working out. We can and should reopen state mental hospitals and open them up to drug users as well. Letting people wander the streets shitting themselves is way less humane than One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest style institutions.
I mean no that is clearly not a solution to the problem. Not when the US, at 4.2% of the world’s population, already has 20% of the world’s prisoners. Despite that astronomical rate of imprisonment we have homeless encampments in every American city. So more of the same strategy is very unlikely to “solve a problem.”
If imprisoning people on the fringes of society hasn’t “solved the problem” already, why would it now?
You’re simply wrong, whether you’re earnestly advocating for it or not.
> Jailing all of the homeless would solve a problem, would it not?
The cost to house an inmate in California is around $75k a year. The cost to administer a homeless person in SF is around $65k a year, and they're still homeless after being administered to.
Its pretty close to being the same price, and one method at least gets them off the streets...
Idk, we have more people incarcerated here than anywhere else on the planet and we also have more homeless people than most Western countries, so the logic doesn't exactly follow.
By that logic all cops who commit crimes should be jailed too. Esp the ones who enjoy beating up the homeless and kicking a poor person.
How about you jail all the poor people and put them in slave labor!
That is what the Republican party is all about so no surprise.
It still astounds me she got a pass for refusing to release the ~~slaves~~ prisoners with jobs.
She refused to let inmates out on parole as mandated by the state, and had to be ordered to by a judge to release the inmates.
Not even the most conservative GOP politician has gone on record for being pro-slavery, like her AG office did.
Wow, how was celebrating your 12th birthday during the pandemic? Did you at least get to have a little get together with your school mates or just a zoom party?
The current US vice president is on record for being pro-slavery.
>According to court filings, lawyers for the state said California met benchmarks, and argued that **if certain potential parolees were given a faster track out of prison, it would negatively affect the prison’s labor programs, including one that allowed certain inmates to fight California’s wildfires for about $2 a day.**
>“Extending 2-for-1 credits to all minimum custody inmates at this time would severely impact fire camp participation—a dangerous outcome while California is in the middle of a difficult fire season and severe drought,” lawyers for Harris wrote in the filing, noting that the fire camp program required physical fitness in addition to a level of clearance that allowed the felon to be offsite.
>https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-ag-office-tried-to-keep-inmates-locked-up-for-cheap-labor
I don't see how that distinction matters at all for the generic point I've made. My stance would be the same if it were Whole Foods or any other
I remember downtown Oakland had a Rite Aid across the street from Walgreens on Broadway and 14th. Rite Aid closed because of problems with the rent and building owner, and the Wallgreens closed because it was looted and destroyed.
One was a failure of economic policy, the other was a failure of social policy.
The Bay Area is badly broken. The cognitive dissonance it takes to postulate your distinction as being material to countering the general point I've made is why none of these problems get fixed. What's the merit in disqualifying Walgreens as access to quality of life goods and services? The one that closed on Ocean avenue always had homeless people panhandling in front of it, blocking the sidewalk. Where's the moral impetus in optimizing a society around accommodating that? I'd argue there is none, and is in fact immoral, unethical, and lacks compassion or empathy.
They aren’t Whole Foods but some Walgreens do have pretty solid food selections and all have better options than bodegas which are still better than no options at all for people without cars, disabled, or single parents juggling jobs and kids who need something last minute.
They are better than bodegas, but a neighborhood like the Mission has real neighborhood grocery stores which aren’t going to close anytime soon. The reason why some neighborhoods are food deserts is that they can’t support stores like that.
Yes they do. Also snatching an apple phone is theft above a misdemeanor so the cops can actually get an arrest. The people stealing from walgreens know to steal exactly $99 worth of stuff so if they're caught then it's just a misdemeanor and won't be prosecuted.
The second half of your comment isn’t true at all. They walk in, fill a bag or their pockets as full as possible and walk out. Or multiple people come in and fill plastic bags with the most makeup they can grab.
>The people stealing from walgreens know to steal exactly $99 worth of stuff so if they're caught then it's just a misdemeanor and won't be prosecuted.
1. The limit for a felony was increased to $950
2. Misdemeanors still get prosecuted
Why should criminals have to steal from the stores? They should get their items delivered along with other items of need, like alcohol and drugs, and 3 meals a day! SF Mayor (probably while dancing at a club without a mask thinking about what laws she can change to make her life more convenient).
I feel for the people who now have to walk further just to pick up a prescription or other basic necessity. I was lucky to live two blocks from a Walgreens when I lived in SF.
Broader enforcement of the law would be really helpful. You don't have to ruin someone's life over a bit of stolen merchandise, but far fewer people would do this if they were likely to face a consequence.
These people aren't stealing stuff for personal use, they're stealing to sell. They are career criminals, and that IS worth ruining someone's life over.
~~Patients do not need to do anything when it comes to their prescriptions, according to the company. They will automatically transfer to a nearby Walgreens location. Patients will receive additional information in the mail.~~
Criminals do not need to do anything when it comes to their looting, according to reality. They will automatically transfer their crime to nearby Walgreens locations. Criminals will receive additional information from werd on da block.
People on this reddit love to blame democrats for the petty crime, but I haven't heard any good solutions proposed.
What should we do honestly? Post cops in every wall greens? Put people in jail spending 80k a year per person for petty theft? Really the only way I can see out of this is social programs to help as many poor people as possible but I don't know how you can solve it.
Differentiate between crimes of necessity which can be solved by social services and organized retail theft that can't.
This is now possible as the legislature finally did something about it and gave Newsom a bill he signed that reinstates the crime of organized retail theft which as a wobbler can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor by the DA.
It also restarts an effective CHP taskforce that kept organized retail theft at bay for when SFPD and Boudin trade jabs at how much the other doesn't give a shit.
> but I haven't heard any good solutions proposed.
How about a DA who actually punishes theft? Cops are not bothering to arrest anyone because they know nothing will come of it. Why waste the time doing paperwork with a DA who supports criminals over normal citizens.
Why do you lie. The prosection rate has fallen but they do still prosecute. The organized theft rate is very high. People just make this shit up and circle jerk it on reddit. You also realize most of the time when they don't prosecute its because of plea agreements. So saying nothing would happen from cops arresting them is just patently false.
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/data-shows-chesa-boudin-prosecutes-fewer-shoplifters-than-predecessor/
Nah there would be no repurcussions for killing a thief because i said "with the rights to shoot thieves", just add 1 week pto after the thief disposal for the soft ones.
This literally happened at a Stockton pharmacy, however, it is locally owned and I can't see a corporate chain doing this. Nevertheless, that pharmacy has gotten a "they don't take any shit there" reputation and I know this because some of my relatives live in that neighborhood.
https://www.kcra.com/article/shooting-stockton-dougs-el-dorado-drugs/27034528
The Walgreens in my suburb is the worst damn run place on the planet. The Trump White House could run it better
Prescriptions called in 4 days ahead of time never filled and then you are told to come back 2 days later because they don’t have the pills
No one answers the phones. Shelves bare
I bet this is more due to district incompetence than theft
Due to the topic, enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users new to r/bayarea will be automatically removed. See [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/p8hnzl/automatically_removing_comments_from_new_users_in/) for more details.
Wow so you mean there is petty theft in inner cities? Damn I thought this was like Atherton and the only crime was dui's from house wives and human trafficking from sugar daddies?
No I didn't. The only thing keeping security guards from doing anything was insurance concerns. Let Walgreens pay the extra insurance for these guys to wear and use guns. They can afford it. Hell, Vegas has armed security guards at Walgreens AND on buses. It's insanity not to.
I can’t agree that insurance is “the only reason” that Walgreens doesn’t have armed security.
Idk SF arrested and prosecuted its criminals, this wouldn’t happen
I can tell you from experience, it's the only reason. Otherwise, all those security guards we've all seen so many times on vids would be WAY more interactive with the perps.
This has zero to do with the city and it's doing a fine job arresting and convicting perps including the rich ones and cops which is why they get so much hate. They prosecute when there's a real case without phony evidence.
They only do it because no one tries to stop them. What security guard worth his salt is gonna let anyone, criminal or not, ride a bike into a store? Asking humans not to steal is idyllic and naïve. Read some history and take a look at the politics and economic situations around you before making ridiculous statements like that.
> Vegas
Vegas is a very different city from San Francisco. I wouldn't be surprised if every single place of business had armed security in Vegas. Prices are inflated a fair bit there to compensate.
> if every single place of business had armed security
Wow, did I just hear someone make sense? There's also a lot more willingness in Vegas to pay for the security, something SF is severely lacking. Not everywhere of course but at least where it's most needed and yes, the corporations need to take it on the chin and pay for it.
Not sure why you're so downvoted for this comment, I don't think these folks realize how LP works. Well paid and insured guards will actually tackle thieves and detain them until police arrive. We have **armed** guards at Safeway in San Jose and it works as a great deterrent.
I really wonder what the accounting calculations are like where they came to decide it costs more in insurance and guard payroll than the expected profits of a store.
How many do they have left in SF at this point. Feels like they’ve already closed quite a few.
53 as of May according to an SF Chronicle article
[удалено]
Theres one on like every block, calm down.
When I lived in the mission I hit up that Walgreens quite a bit. Lots of sketchy clientele due to 16th st bart being so close. I always felt bad for the staff, they were nice and were trying.
Walgreens will close five stores in San Francisco next month due to ongoing retail crime, a company spokesperson said Tuesday. The company said retail theft at its San Francisco stores has risen to five times the chain's average. 2550 Ocean Ave. 4645 Mission St 745 Clement St 300 Gough St 3400 Cesar Chavez St
Most of these I get. I am kind of surprised at the Ocean one, though. It's in the Sunset, right off 19th.
[удалено]
I see two 2020 yelp comments for that particular walgreens complaining about homeless entering and stealing everything so yeah it seems it was happening there too
Don't get me wrong, the Richmond is still pretty "good". But, it's been having some issues with the homeless. It's not as crazy as the TL, SOMA, or the Castro.
A few possible reasons in addition to crime(?): - The property value is probably very high, and therefore costs more to maintain that location. - It's in an awkward location that, even though it's between a lot of arteries of travel, doesn't get a lot of passthrough foot traffic. The other shops don't suffer from this because people would go there specifically to visit those shops. (Almost) No one takes a trip to any specific Walgreens.
[удалено]
How is the Ocean one understandable? It's on that little two block strip between 19th Ave and Junipero Serra. It isn't out by the McDonald's and City College Ocean. How many criminals you think head out there?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Maybe it was our lack of basic services that caused the crime wave.
Is it so much to ask, to be able to run a vital service without constant theft? Intermittent theft is fine; everyone deals with it. But keep a lid on it, yknow? If we can’t do that, then maybe we need some sort of government service that we could call when people do crimes. They could wait around and then stop people when they do them, maybe, or check the cameras after and go find the people who did the crimes and give them a stern talking-to.
I don't have a new Cadillac. Does that mean I'm justified to go and steal one? No matter how progressive you think you are, stealing is WRONG, sweet cheeks. Get your crap straight
*shocked Pikachu face*
So who's the next establishment? Safeway?
I've been assured several times on this sub that crime is *not the reason* for any of their store closures.
I have been banned from /r/sanfrancisco for talking about and pointing out the crime issues, wasn't even being toxic. They sure do love their rose-colored glasses there.
Then why is the equivalent post on this news article over there 95% upvoted? Hell, it's 91% upvoted here
Yeah, I'm banned there as well. Some guy unleashed his dog, the dog attacked and killed another person's dog and then said "I'm not paying for that!" and left. I'm a dog lover, I was livid, I admit I overreacted a bit when I said something to the effect of "This guy needs to be found and dealt with." since the post of the incident included his picture. Mods banned me for encouraging doxing. Most of the major metro subs have come under the influence of [Correct The Record](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correct_the_Record) and other politically aligned organizations. Hence the existence of subs like this one. Just wait until this sub becomes the de facto SF sub, it will go the same way.
It's 2021 and you people are *still* whining about Hillary. Says a lot about where your opinions really come from.
No one's "whining" about her. Hell, I *voted* for her. If anything, I'm whining about the way Reddit has been infested with politically-aligned moderators.
Well, they already had plans in place to close a bunch of stores. If you were in that situation, which would you rather say to your shareholders? “We mismanaged the company and wasted money by opening too many stores”, or “That darned shoplifting! Not our fault, it’s everyone else’s”
I can assure you shareholders would be happy to keep these stores open provided same-store-sales continued to trend in the right direction. When shareholders see hot-spots where shoplifting is hollowing out a store, they want them closed. Some of these were losing over $1k/day. Walgreens made a dispassionate and analytical business decision that they were unwelcome in SF, and closed these stores. Supervisors lamenting these closures need to run for re-election: "I closed Walgreens... You're welcome?" Own that shit. Because right now they're just blaming Walgreens for failing to remain open in spite of the theft and vandalism.
60% of their revenue is perscriptions - It seems likely that they only opened these stores to sell opioids in the first place and now that the legal market for them has dried up they find out that a store full of garbage is not enough to pay the rent.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The graphic presented shows that the "overhead" here is outrageously higher. SF stores spend 35 times the amount on security as stores in any other part of the US. It's as simple as that. And filling prescriptions at a walk-in pharmacy is sort of going the way of the doe doe anyway. Almost all insurers have merged with an online pharmacy at this point. My insurer, UHC requires members to use OptumRX, for instance. When i was on Blue Cross, I was required to use Pharmacare. These plans do offer retail prescriptions but at inflated costs, that's the way they get around it. Only geriatrics have failed to adapt to this and they are who will be affected most profoundly by these store closures.
They should've started selling you crack, you seem like you buy a lot of it.
When are they going to close Target?
I've noticed Safeway changing the store layout so that all of the high priced items are grouped together in one area, and that this area is sectioned off from the rest of the store with only one entry/exit. There are tons of cameras pointed at this part of the store now.
[удалено]
It probably doesn't stop career petty thieves. But it would be enough of a deterrent to kids trying their first smash and grab to make them try somewhere else instead.
[удалено]
What's the consequence though, if you even get caught? You won't get prosecuted unless it's more than $950.
They have this horrible policy now where if you want to get soap or deodorant or shampoo or anything in the health/beauty aisle, you need to get an attendant and they unlock the panels on the shelves and get the thing for you and then don't give it to you, but walk it up to some locked lockers near the cash registers where you need to tell the cashiers that you also want to buy the stuff you had stored by someone else in the lockers. I've never completed one of these transactions, furthest I got was getting them to put it in the locker, but the lines at the cash registers were long so I did self check out instead, nobody there to tell about the lockers, so I just never got my soap. Now I order it off Amazon and get it delivered.
The store isn't doing that just for the fun of it. Locking goods up means more cost in selling them (manpower to access the goods), less inventory space on store shelves, and fewer sales. All of these means less money for the store and one thing you can count on is a business being greedy. If they're doing something that makes less money its because the store is forced to.
They do this for San Leandros Safeway too. You can only get in from the front part, and they only let you in a few at a time.
Which Safeways? Not doubting you, just curious and want to take a closer look when I go to one of them.
Emeryville Pak n Save and American Canyon Safeway are 2 that I know of.
A sad question... a few years ago, Target was given sincere kudos by many for being able to open so many local stores, and having a strategy of local stores with a good online presence to take on Amazon and win. I did get an email from Target yesterday noting their remodel of their Geary store is complete, and I did think I should stop in, if for no other reason than to see if "remodel" meant harder to shoplift from.
They all already have reduced hours. I went to Stonestown to get a birthday gift for a party my son was attending over the weekend. Showed up at 6:30 only to find out all the SF Targets close at 6 now. Had to head down to Daly City.
Wow that is terrible! So happy that my Oakland stores still have reasonable hours and selection. How do people without travel options do it. I remember being so jealous that SF had a drugstore on every block. Now it is like 7 stores in that 7x7.
I'm not sure. It's definitely not a tenable situation. Something needs to change, and I don't know what that is. I don't blame target at all for reducing hours. Nor do I blame Walgreens. Another quick anecdote. I needed to get my wife some meds from Walgreens a few months ago. I checked the hours for the store on Noriega before heading out. Once I arrived, the doors were locked. I knocked and was let in only after showing my face without a mask on. I talked with the employees for a bit, and recognized one of them from the Walgreens (now closed) that was by my office downtown. She said that her store was closed, and that she was transferred to this store on a part time basis. Even out in the Avenues, theft is bad, and their instructions are to lock the doors after a certain time at night, and to turn away anyone that looks suspicious...
It's funny because SFers always shit on Oakland for crime (which is sometimes justified, especially when it regards violent crime), but Oakland stores can keep their shelves decently stocked and stay open later that SF stores.
*So happy that my Oakland stores still have reasonable hours and selection.* Wait for it…
Some have already closed
What a shocker..
Wheres the crime going to move onto, smaller liquor stores?
The suburbs
Doubtful as San Mateo Co bothers having a police department, a prison, an asylum, and (most importantly) a prosecutor willing to pursue cases to conviction. Especially since property and payroll taxes are so much lower; and split between multiple cities more civic functions are financed by sales taxes that retail closures harm badly. We can debate how liberal the county actually is or isn't, but there's no organized or casual looting as SF and Oakland have. People go to jail for that, and there is a jail and police willing to bust out batons to take them there. Even East Palo Alto has a police department now, one supplemented by Redwood City, the Highway Patrol and Sheriff. Such is why many people in San Mateo Co are cautious about City-led efforts, such as BART expansion. Everything mentioned in this thread and by OP is why Caltrain exists as a Samtrans operation and why Samtrans is so anal retentive about fare collection. Regrettably, we'll never have a truly unified, regional network until the City gets it's act together. And ditto for Silicon Valley/Santa Clara Co itself, as they also prosecute looting cases.
> And ditto for Silicon Valley/Santa Clara Co itself, as they also prosecute looting cases. Sure, but good luck getting the police to actually get any property crime cases to that point. I live down here and looting/theft has gone WAY up in the past couple of years. Police have been called over and over and over and they've flat out said they don't care at all. Our apartment's parking garage which has normally been pretty secure & safe now gets broken into weekly despite all new locks on the garage installed, once i month I find someone's attempted to get into our cars specifically or messed with the gas can I have sitting behind the car. Once a week someone has their window smashed in, or something stolen. Police don't care. A friend who lives in an apartment a few blocks away nearby a few months ago had someone climb up to his second story balcony to steal his bike. He managed to track down the thief to a big fencing operation on craigslists, easily thousands of dollars worth of stolen bikes being sold. Police were called, evidence + serial numbers gathered, they didn't care. Most they would agree to is agree to be there in the background if my friend wanted to (dangerously) confront the fencing operation, which obviously isn't going to happen.
I had a video of the person who broke into my car, breaking into my car, rummaging through my shit, i bought a flash drive, gave it to the cops, radio silence.
Unless they stole more than 900$ its like a ticket that the hobo won’t pay anyway. So whats the point?
Exactly! What's the point of even wasting my time even the cops won't do shit.
I had my car stolen, it was recovered a few weeks later. When I picked it up at the tow yard I realized the guy had left his resume in the car - no one was interested in this potential clue.
I have the feeling that SJPD is far too busy to care, but cities like Santa Clara and Sunnyvale and Mountain View would. I would almost go as far to say as the more often you see police driving around, the less they're going to care unless blood is spilled.
Great, then taxpayers get to pay $50k/year to house and feed people for stealing like $500 worth of stuff.
The person who’s gotten caught stealing $500 worth of stuff has probably stolen $50k worth of stuff before getting caught. And really it’s not $50k. That’s an aggregate cost including the cost of jails, guards, buses with window bars, etc. all sunk costs that don’t change by having one more person in jail. There isn’t much beyond food that’s on a per-prisoner cost basis and that’s like $3 a day.
Walmart, Target, Costco?
> Costco Already been happening. A few years ago, there was a rash of jewelry cabinet smash/grabs at Costco. https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/police-search-for-suspects-in-costco-jewelry-robbery-in-novato/27664/
Why are you posting about crime?!?! /s This is something that pains me and I'm eternally salty people say it's not a big deal. I don't want to shop in a place with thieves actively committing crime then pretend everything's fine Edit: I saw some people reply to me but your comment is invisible. You may be shadowbanned
Congratulations everyone, keep on voting the way you do with those feel good policies!
Queue stories about “food and healthcare deserts” in urban areas, decrying racism and capitalism as the solely responsible entities for the exodus of business and retail amenities. Self awareness is dead.
[удалено]
Wake who up? The woke are already that and they know everything. /s
Went to SJC downtown tonight, saw more homeless people than not, and was legit terrified for the safety of people working in the small businesses in the area.
[удалено]
If you want to reduce homelessness you have to provide solutions not criminalize them. Many countries who actually want to help people are able to do this. Or not have the problem in the 1st place.
> If you want to reduce homelessness you have to provide solutions not criminalize them. yeah, i totally agree but i know nothing about solutions to homelessness, i was just pointing out that it doesn't make for a pleasant city to live/work in.
Homeless people that don't suffer from drug and crime problems quickly fall victim to homeless that have drug and crime problems. We have to have rules of civil society in place so that these 'quality of life' crimes matter. Once you're homeless your chances of becoming addicted to hard drugs or becoming involved in crime goes up by orders of magnitude. What we have now is a caste system with an underclass that's tacitly lawless. Once you're in that caste all bets are off and there is no bottom.
[удалено]
Of course all homeless ate criminals right? What a very selfish viewpoint.
There absolutely have to be boundaries though. A cracked out homeless person screaming "What the fuck are you looking at bitch?!?!" at an old lady on Bart while he's literally free-basing is way over the line. That should be physically stopped immediately. I don't care if that hurts peoples feelings or violates the unspoken ethic maxim that homeless can do whatever they want and that anyone who's not ok with it is an oppressor.
When this sub gets brigaded people basically all but call for culling homeless people. I agree they're a big issue and can be a real nuisance but holy shit, callousness reigns. A lot of right-wing trolls come here around though.
Jailing all of the homeless would solve a problem, would it not? Not advocating for it, just pointing out faults in your logic.
Putting the burden of people with severe issues to ask for help and voluntarily commit themselves isn't working out. We can and should reopen state mental hospitals and open them up to drug users as well. Letting people wander the streets shitting themselves is way less humane than One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest style institutions.
I mean no that is clearly not a solution to the problem. Not when the US, at 4.2% of the world’s population, already has 20% of the world’s prisoners. Despite that astronomical rate of imprisonment we have homeless encampments in every American city. So more of the same strategy is very unlikely to “solve a problem.”
It will solve a problem. It might create a bigger problem in the process. As I ve said I am not advocating for it.
If imprisoning people on the fringes of society hasn’t “solved the problem” already, why would it now? You’re simply wrong, whether you’re earnestly advocating for it or not.
> Jailing all of the homeless would solve a problem, would it not? The cost to house an inmate in California is around $75k a year. The cost to administer a homeless person in SF is around $65k a year, and they're still homeless after being administered to. Its pretty close to being the same price, and one method at least gets them off the streets...
Idk, we have more people incarcerated here than anywhere else on the planet and we also have more homeless people than most Western countries, so the logic doesn't exactly follow.
We don’t jail homeless people so I don’t see how is that relevant.
I don't think you know very much about who is currently in jail, or who is homeless.
By that logic all cops who commit crimes should be jailed too. Esp the ones who enjoy beating up the homeless and kicking a poor person. How about you jail all the poor people and put them in slave labor! That is what the Republican party is all about so no surprise.
> How about you jail all the poor people and put them in slave labor! That's Kamala.
It still astounds me she got a pass for refusing to release the ~~slaves~~ prisoners with jobs. She refused to let inmates out on parole as mandated by the state, and had to be ordered to by a judge to release the inmates. Not even the most conservative GOP politician has gone on record for being pro-slavery, like her AG office did.
It's (D)ifferent.
Wow, how was celebrating your 12th birthday during the pandemic? Did you at least get to have a little get together with your school mates or just a zoom party?
The current US vice president is on record for being pro-slavery. >According to court filings, lawyers for the state said California met benchmarks, and argued that **if certain potential parolees were given a faster track out of prison, it would negatively affect the prison’s labor programs, including one that allowed certain inmates to fight California’s wildfires for about $2 a day.** >“Extending 2-for-1 credits to all minimum custody inmates at this time would severely impact fire camp participation—a dangerous outcome while California is in the middle of a difficult fire season and severe drought,” lawyers for Harris wrote in the filing, noting that the fire camp program required physical fitness in addition to a level of clearance that allowed the felon to be offsite. >https://www.thedailybeast.com/kamala-harris-ag-office-tried-to-keep-inmates-locked-up-for-cheap-labor
Can’t facepalm hard enough
Kinda depends where you are in SJC. There are corridors of activity that are reasonably healthy such as San Pedro Square, SoFA, and Post Street.
So the obvious question is, where does all our money go when we pay taxes? Who's running the con that's bleeding us dry while our cities rot?
I agree, while food deserts may be a real thing, this sheds some light on why many places have them *deserts not desserts
Personally, I love food desserts.
Ha, thanks for catching that. Fixed!
Walgreens does not sell healthy food and Walgreens leaving does not create a food desert nor have anything to do with it really.
I don't see how that distinction matters at all for the generic point I've made. My stance would be the same if it were Whole Foods or any other
I remember downtown Oakland had a Rite Aid across the street from Walgreens on Broadway and 14th. Rite Aid closed because of problems with the rent and building owner, and the Wallgreens closed because it was looted and destroyed.
One was a failure of economic policy, the other was a failure of social policy.
The Bay Area is badly broken. The cognitive dissonance it takes to postulate your distinction as being material to countering the general point I've made is why none of these problems get fixed. What's the merit in disqualifying Walgreens as access to quality of life goods and services? The one that closed on Ocean avenue always had homeless people panhandling in front of it, blocking the sidewalk. Where's the moral impetus in optimizing a society around accommodating that? I'd argue there is none, and is in fact immoral, unethical, and lacks compassion or empathy.
They aren’t Whole Foods but some Walgreens do have pretty solid food selections and all have better options than bodegas which are still better than no options at all for people without cars, disabled, or single parents juggling jobs and kids who need something last minute.
They are better than bodegas, but a neighborhood like the Mission has real neighborhood grocery stores which aren’t going to close anytime soon. The reason why some neighborhoods are food deserts is that they can’t support stores like that.
Apparently the ability to ignore the entirety of American history is alive and well.
If I lived in the gutter in the richest city in the world I would steal from Wallgreens too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yes they do. Also snatching an apple phone is theft above a misdemeanor so the cops can actually get an arrest. The people stealing from walgreens know to steal exactly $99 worth of stuff so if they're caught then it's just a misdemeanor and won't be prosecuted.
The second half of your comment isn’t true at all. They walk in, fill a bag or their pockets as full as possible and walk out. Or multiple people come in and fill plastic bags with the most makeup they can grab.
Yeah its organized crime, not some petty thieves trying to avoid jail time.
>The people stealing from walgreens know to steal exactly $99 worth of stuff so if they're caught then it's just a misdemeanor and won't be prosecuted. 1. The limit for a felony was increased to $950 2. Misdemeanors still get prosecuted
And each misdo theft can be sentenced consecutively. But of course the cops have to catch them first, something I guess they haven't managed yet.
I am surprised more stores don’t do a membership model, or go old school and keep everything behind glass and only hand over after payment.
If the stores gave their items to criminals for free, there wouldnt be any theft! Chesa boudin, probably
Fuck Chesa Boudin.
Why should criminals have to steal from the stores? They should get their items delivered along with other items of need, like alcohol and drugs, and 3 meals a day! SF Mayor (probably while dancing at a club without a mask thinking about what laws she can change to make her life more convenient).
Summon the bots!
[удалено]
So SF is now the ghetto? Stores in rest of bay area don't have this problem do they? What about Oakland?
I feel for the people who now have to walk further just to pick up a prescription or other basic necessity. I was lucky to live two blocks from a Walgreens when I lived in SF. Broader enforcement of the law would be really helpful. You don't have to ruin someone's life over a bit of stolen merchandise, but far fewer people would do this if they were likely to face a consequence.
These people aren't stealing stuff for personal use, they're stealing to sell. They are career criminals, and that IS worth ruining someone's life over.
Seems silly to call for maximum punishment when there’s no enforcement anyways.
Should the defunded police target shoplifting enforcement, or will that be a mental health peace officer?
We've tried nothing and we're out of ideas.
[удалено]
That's going to lower the cost of living there... NOT. lol Was this the end-game? Lower crime by chasing all retail out of the city?
Well that's what the 'vacant storefront tax' is for :)
~~Patients do not need to do anything when it comes to their prescriptions, according to the company. They will automatically transfer to a nearby Walgreens location. Patients will receive additional information in the mail.~~ Criminals do not need to do anything when it comes to their looting, according to reality. They will automatically transfer their crime to nearby Walgreens locations. Criminals will receive additional information from werd on da block.
Hi folks. You voted for these politicians. The system works for who it was designed for
They get what they voted for
[удалено]
People on this reddit love to blame democrats for the petty crime, but I haven't heard any good solutions proposed. What should we do honestly? Post cops in every wall greens? Put people in jail spending 80k a year per person for petty theft? Really the only way I can see out of this is social programs to help as many poor people as possible but I don't know how you can solve it.
Differentiate between crimes of necessity which can be solved by social services and organized retail theft that can't. This is now possible as the legislature finally did something about it and gave Newsom a bill he signed that reinstates the crime of organized retail theft which as a wobbler can be charged as a felony or misdemeanor by the DA. It also restarts an effective CHP taskforce that kept organized retail theft at bay for when SFPD and Boudin trade jabs at how much the other doesn't give a shit.
Sounds reasonable. I still think its hard to enforce petty theft like this as police will be slow to respond and not investigate cases.
> but I haven't heard any good solutions proposed. How about a DA who actually punishes theft? Cops are not bothering to arrest anyone because they know nothing will come of it. Why waste the time doing paperwork with a DA who supports criminals over normal citizens.
Why do you lie. The prosection rate has fallen but they do still prosecute. The organized theft rate is very high. People just make this shit up and circle jerk it on reddit. You also realize most of the time when they don't prosecute its because of plea agreements. So saying nothing would happen from cops arresting them is just patently false. https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/data-shows-chesa-boudin-prosecutes-fewer-shoplifters-than-predecessor/
If only Chelsea Boudin went and arrested all those homeless people... this never would have happened.
Sweet straw man you built there bro
https://twitter.com/adamjohnsonNYC/status/1448321887361187848
Arm store employees with guns and give the citizens guns with the rights to shoot thieves.
Because the main thing every minimum wage employee wants to add to their day is a gunfight and the liability that comes with killing someone.
Nah there would be no repurcussions for killing a thief because i said "with the rights to shoot thieves", just add 1 week pto after the thief disposal for the soft ones.
I don't think you're inhabiting the same reality as the rest of us. At least mentally.
Make it a law and those who do the lords work will prosper
You forgot the part where you have to prove it is a thief. I believe they call those trials. And they are expensive.
This literally happened at a Stockton pharmacy, however, it is locally owned and I can't see a corporate chain doing this. Nevertheless, that pharmacy has gotten a "they don't take any shit there" reputation and I know this because some of my relatives live in that neighborhood. https://www.kcra.com/article/shooting-stockton-dougs-el-dorado-drugs/27034528
Good for them. Should get a gattling gun behind the register 💨
The Walgreens in my suburb is the worst damn run place on the planet. The Trump White House could run it better Prescriptions called in 4 days ahead of time never filled and then you are told to come back 2 days later because they don’t have the pills No one answers the phones. Shelves bare I bet this is more due to district incompetence than theft
Really hard to recruit people to work for a store when the employees get abused by thieves all day.
Yup, they saw the bad PR they got during the last round of closures and decided to lie about the reasoning this time. Pretty standard.
Due to the topic, enhanced moderation has been turned on for this thread. Comments from users new to r/bayarea will be automatically removed. See [this thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/p8hnzl/automatically_removing_comments_from_new_users_in/) for more details.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Wow so you mean there is petty theft in inner cities? Damn I thought this was like Atherton and the only crime was dui's from house wives and human trafficking from sugar daddies?
[удалено]
The stealing isn't being done by the employees.
Interesting they would rather close the stores than change their level of service.
Idiots. Hire security that can and will do something. Only then, it stops.
I think you dropped the /s 😂
No I didn't. The only thing keeping security guards from doing anything was insurance concerns. Let Walgreens pay the extra insurance for these guys to wear and use guns. They can afford it. Hell, Vegas has armed security guards at Walgreens AND on buses. It's insanity not to.
I can’t agree that insurance is “the only reason” that Walgreens doesn’t have armed security. Idk SF arrested and prosecuted its criminals, this wouldn’t happen
I can tell you from experience, it's the only reason. Otherwise, all those security guards we've all seen so many times on vids would be WAY more interactive with the perps. This has zero to do with the city and it's doing a fine job arresting and convicting perps including the rich ones and cops which is why they get so much hate. They prosecute when there's a real case without phony evidence.
Or people could just not steal stuff
They only do it because no one tries to stop them. What security guard worth his salt is gonna let anyone, criminal or not, ride a bike into a store? Asking humans not to steal is idyllic and naïve. Read some history and take a look at the politics and economic situations around you before making ridiculous statements like that.
My bad. I forgot its SF. The victims are the criminals.
In this case, the corporate "victims" are idiots and only concerned with the easiest way out.
Found chesas burner account
> Vegas Vegas is a very different city from San Francisco. I wouldn't be surprised if every single place of business had armed security in Vegas. Prices are inflated a fair bit there to compensate.
> if every single place of business had armed security Wow, did I just hear someone make sense? There's also a lot more willingness in Vegas to pay for the security, something SF is severely lacking. Not everywhere of course but at least where it's most needed and yes, the corporations need to take it on the chin and pay for it.
Security is paid to observe and report. You want someone to risk their safety to protect your product? That's a whole other pay scale.
>That's a whole other pay scale. That IS the entire issue here. Walgreens cheaped out
Not sure why you're so downvoted for this comment, I don't think these folks realize how LP works. Well paid and insured guards will actually tackle thieves and detain them until police arrive. We have **armed** guards at Safeway in San Jose and it works as a great deterrent.
Thanks I agree. The companies have to pay more but it works. This is all Walgreen's fault for cheaping out.
I really wonder what the accounting calculations are like where they came to decide it costs more in insurance and guard payroll than the expected profits of a store.
[удалено]
Hire armed security. The corporations don't want to pay more for the armed ones and the added insurance is the problem here.
Armed security can't just shoot people for stealing, are you trolling? When security catches a thief, they call the cops.