Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote: Sat May 22, 2021 9:45 pm
I don't know shit about Seattle, but in CA, changing the Grand Theft threshold to 950$ happened in 2010.
https://www.california-criminal-lawyer- ... ed_to_950/
Now - Oakland is in CA, and we've still got Wallgreens and CVS and other, similar retailers. But, in SF, they can't afford the rents, and they can't attract good employees at the wages offered, and this has been a trend for a while.
They didn't close their SF stores in 2010, when the law changed - they are closing now.
You're the one with the broad brush, brother. Seattle ain't SF, and SF ain't the rest of CA - but all of CA has had the same threshold for Grand Theft for 11 years.
1,000 dollar fine and 6 months in prison sounds like a reasonable punishment for non-violent thefts without a weapon totaling less than 950$.
Well, the Seattle non-enforcement and legal relaxation just began and it's already decimating local, successful, stores, chains, and long time family businesses. It looks like (as doc loliday pointed out) the SF law has been taking a toll for a while. But regardless of whether the older law in SF had as an immediate and dire of an impact of the Seattle one, let's step back and look at the larger problem.
You alluded to the government response to COVID as being the culprit for the dying Walgreens (after victim blaming the business owners of course, old habits die hard). Government COVID response is definitely a factor in killing businesses, and I fear that they're not nearly done yet. So on that count, you're absolutely right. Why do the restrictions kill businesses? Because unlike the level of customer service, online competition, or geographic location - government mandates are a factor that slapped all effected businesses equally. Twelve Walgreens didn't go under because no employee across twelve stores can offer decent customer service. That's ridiculous. Nor did the internet, which has been here for decades now, suddenly drive a stake through their heart. Government mandated restrictions surely played a factor though.
Ok - so if we can agree that government rules can impact effected businesses equally - then why can't you accept that the refusal to enforce these rules, or relaxing of the rules, ALSO play a frickin' factor, dude?
It's the same thing. The exact same thing. Government says close your doors. POW! businesses lose money. Government says reduce your customer presence to 'X' number of people at a time. POW! sales decline.
Well guess what happens when the government says "Shoplifting isn't that big of a deal and is being de-prioritized"?
You think it makes internet competition more fierce and reduces customer service levels?
No, dude.
It increases shoplifting incidents.
And stores start leaving.
If not immediately, then as the problem intensifies over time.
