I'm not saying that it's literally impossible, I'm saying that it need not be trivial or cost effective, or that the level of the problem we see may be after su

I'm not saying that it's literally impossible, I'm saying that it need not be trivial or cost effective, or that the level of the problem we see may be after such mitigation measures and not before them, or that limited resources may be being allocated elsewhere, or that there might be local incentive gradients blocking solutions - or more generally that the claims you're making don't seem to have taken these alternatives seriously. "It doesn't seem like it should be that hard" is a fair observation, and a reasonable starting point for questions, but it isn't a proof that it isn't that hard and it isn't the end of the conversation. Two things stick out at me here: one, I don't think Inside Edition would publish a piece entitled "we put out a bait car and nothing happened", so the negative-reporting bias is still operative. And unless Breed's office is just lying (possible, of course), your own choice of quote says SF is apparently already doing what you want them to do. My claim here isn't that there isn't a problem or that there aren't solutions to it or even that this specific approach isn't a solution to it. My claim is that this is not a good argument (in the sense of validity, not in the sense of correctness of conclusion), because it is not engaging with any alternative explanations or even investigating seriously whether this approach has already been tried. Instead, it's simply going "well I, a random blogger, thought of something that seems like a plausible solution, so the only possible reason for failure is that city governments don't care about crime".