5 ms·
> 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
by _jab 4y ago
> 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.
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-punishment-for-theft-depends-on-what-state-you-re-in 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/walgreens-backpedals-on-theft 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.
- cudgy 4y ago“Texas, of all places, has an equivalent law, except its limit is $2500 - higher than California's” 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.
- xboxnolifes 4y agoThat's the point. It's not Prop 47's fault. It's enforcement.
- khazhoux 4y agoA difference without a distinction
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- josephcsible 4y ago> 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 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.
- hotpotamus 4y agoIn Texas, our Attorney General is currently under indictment for felonies[0] (and has been for going on a decade; I suppose he's good at legal delays), so I don't get the impression that felonies are taken particularly seriously either. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Paxton#Legal_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ken_Paxton#Legal_issues
- pg_1234 4y agoWhat SF retailers should do is add $1000 to all price tags (online/advertised prices can stay the same) and discount every item by an extra $1000 on checkout. 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.