By S. Priana Aquino
SAN FRANCISCO, CA — Walgreens—claiming a continued string of retail theft is the cause—is closing five of its stores in San Francisco, but other business chains are staying open and have taken measures to decrease the number of thefts that have been occurring in brick-and-mortar stores throughout the city.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Walgreen’s explanation for this closure is not consistent with publicly available information and may instead be a cover for other reasons that may have led to this decision.
“Data released by the San Francisco Police Department does not support the explanation announced by Walgreens that it is closing five stores because of organized, rampant retail theft,” reports the San Francisco Chronicle.
“One of the stores set to close, on Ocean Avenue, had only seven reported shoplifting incidents this year and a total of 23 since 2018, the data showed. While not all shoplifting incidents are reported to police, the five stores slated to close had fewer than two recorded shoplifting incidents a month on average since 2018,” wrote the Chronicle.
District 5 Supervisor Dean Preston has also questioned Walgreens’ explanation, taking to Twitter to express his opinion.
“Walgreens has long planned to close hundreds of locations,” wrote Preston. “In an SEC (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) filing in August 2019, Walgreens stated that it planned to close approximately 200 U.S. stores following ‘a review of the real estate footprint in the United States,” the supervisor said.
This is not to say that theft does not affect San Francisco businesses.
In the last few months, Target has reduced shopping hours to reduce the number of stolen items they have lost this year. Other stores have also taken security measures to prevent break ins or robberies.
However, the inconsistencies between retail stores’ theft claims and what the actual data on their businesses tell us may bolster efforts to recall SF District Attorney Chesa Boudin.
According to ABC7 News, data shows that Boudin has dramatically reduced the number of shoplifting cases he has chosen to prosecute since taking office in Jan. 2020. Prosecutions for theft under $950 dropped from 70 percent under the previous DA to 44 percent under Boudin in 2020. That number rose 6 percent by mid-June 2021.
Though Walgreens has refuted the pushback from other SF officials by stating organized crime is the top point of concern and reason for store removal, many officials are still left unsure if this is truly the case.
Supervisor Preston echoed these sentiments as he asked on Twitter: “So is Walgreens closing stores because of theft or because of a pre-existing business plan to cut costs and increase profits by consolidating stores and shifting customers to online purchases?”
I read this quote about shoplifting theft:
The level of theft is no longer getting reported as it used to because retailers feel “what’s the use”?
First of all, the DA is a layer removed from the police – which is part of what has made me curious. This sounds like a policing issue – perhaps… but see the next point.
Second, if you steal a pack of cigarettes from 7-11 here in Davis, is there any chance that calling the police is going to make a difference?
Third, how come someone can go behind the counter at Walgreens to steal cigarettes? Why not either make the counter inaccessible or put the cigarettes behind a lock? It’s not that expensive to do. Most convenience stores do that for this very reason.
Fourth, it ignores the other part of the story which is that Walgreens planned to close in SF long before Boudin was around.
So you’re blaming the store for theft. It’s not just cigarettes, pretty much anything can be stolen unless it’s too large. Should stores put everything behind glass or under lock and key? You’re making excuses.
Then how about Target? They cut back their SF store hours due to theft. It’s rampant.
Exactly, thanks for proving my point. Retailers are not calling the police with shoplifting complaints as much as they used to, they know it’s useless to do so.
“Exactly, thanks for proving my point. Retailers are not calling the police with shoplifting complaints as much as they used to, they know it’s useless to do so.”
Is it Reisig’s fault if it happens in Yolo? The police cannot come fast enough to detain someone shoplifting in any jurisdiction. So you either take measures to protect your business or you have theft.
There’s nothing new about this. I remember staying at my cousin’s place in Oakland in the 90s, my car got broken into, the police asked if anyone was hurt and when we said no, they said file a report with your insurance.
Once again, thanks for proving my point. Stores are no longer reporting thefts so citing stats that theft is down is pointless.
I’m not proving your point. We don’t know if your point is accurate or not.
This was from the Chronicle last week:” One of the stores set to close, on Ocean Avenue, had only seven reported shoplifting incidents this year and a total of 23 since 2018, the data showed. While not all shoplifting incidents are reported to police, the five stores slated to close had fewer than two recorded shoplifting incidents a month on average since 2018.”
If your Walgreens, and you are claiming that the reason that you are closing 5 stores is theft rather than other reasons and you want the city to do something about theft, shouldn’t you be reporting theft? Your point is plausible, but it also puts the city and police in a tough position – how do we address theft if theft is not being reported?
Walgreens is addressing the theft problem by closing stores in SF. Do you not believe them? Do you not believe Target?
Walgreens has 53 stores in San Francisco and is closing just five of them. So is it theft or do they have too many stores?
How do we address theft when it’s essentially no longer illegal? And even security guards have been instructed to simply “observe”.
Perhaps by mailing them a citation?
They’ve closed 17 so far. Probably in the most crime ridden areas. The plan as I understand it is to close 5 more.
I think the big problem is they have too many stores in San Francisco
Let me get this straight. Politicians are now claiming that Walgreens is lying? What motive would Walgreens have for doing so?
And conversely, do politicians have a motive to make that claim?
Chronicle article today: https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/More-than-meets-the-eye-to-Walgreens-S-F-16555962.php
No one has speculated on the reason why they would be blaming theft.
I speculate that it’s a corporate conspiracy to unseat Boudin by making crime appear to be his fault.
I don’t actually.
Friends in SF tell me shoplifting is rampant. Has been for many years. Is easy to see items for sale along streets that are clearly from drugstores blocks away, or at flea markets.
And selling stolen goods online as this article points out. Plus it’s not Target or Walgreens that the story is about, yet another retailer is making the same claims:
Ssssssh . . . quiet, quiet . . . your words not part of the narrative and might hurt our precious Chesa . . . and how dare you cite that extremist right-wing capitalist rag, The Wall Street Journal!
Yes, I’ve noticed.
Oh no, they would never do that. LMAO
Thefts are under control in San Francisco, it’s proven by the data. Sure it is…
I’m wondering what the editorial conscience of this here online Davis magazine thinks should happen to those arrested in these ‘flash mob’ thefts ? If they are convicted, should they be released without punishment and decarcerated because of disproportionate justice and white supremacy? Or is the answer to the question based on what race/skin-color they turn out to be? What if some of them are white-appearing and some of them are persons-of-color appearing? Should they get incarceration terms based on the inverse of the diversion from the median of the disproportionate injustice of their affiliated racial identification or outsider observation ?
I don’t know Alan, but I think a lot of it is based on what race they happen to be. Maybe they can let them out on $500 bail, or no bail, so something like in Waukesha, Wisconsin on Sunday where a criminal being charged on two counts with a total bail of $1000 was free and able to mow down several innocent people.
I’m guessing it’s the odd assumption that because more right-leaning people are unvaccinated that all right-leaning people are anti-vaxxers, and no left-leaning people are anti-vaxxers. But that’s not true, especially in Davis, Berkeley, SF . . . etc. There are SO many anti-gov’t, anti-establishment, anti-vaxxers, left-leaning peepsies ’round here. BE-f-ing-WARE. Or don’t.
I’m basically an anti-vaxxer myself. I haven’t got a vaccine in 40 years . . . maybe 50 years. Well, except for Covid-19. Got that one.
Quite a common fishing strategy…