You admittedly have no context, yet you want to refute the obviously plainly stated fact from the source of the closures themselves with the word of the mayor w

You admittedly have no context, yet you want to refute the obviously plainly stated fact from the source of the closures themselves with the word of the mayor who is highly incentivized to downplay crime in the city? Really? Walgreens stated years ago: "To help combat this retail theft, we increased our investments in security measures in stores across the city to 46 times our chain average in an effort to provide a safe environment. This is primarily a result of our participation in the city’s 10B program to hire off-duty SFPD officers to have a presence in our stores" Yet you're juggling semantics to imply somehow theft is causing them to close the stores, but the cost of the theft... somehow doesn't factor in? Do you think they just feel morally bad about the shoplifters? – Honestly this is a tired topic. For years Walgreens wouldn't even admit that theft played any role at all because they didn't want to get dragged into local politics, but even they had their breaking point. You can readily find a million and one talking heads claiming that Walgreens closed because of anything but theft because admitting they closed due to theft is admitting there's a problem when poor people rob "rich corporations"... and some people just hate that idea. Won't do anything to change the fact that Walgreens themselves have finally admitted the actual cause.