I seriously doubt a lot of these larger cities that are in the "doom loop" will have the same results with the current differences between 20-30 years ago and today with simply turning buildings into apartments.
Just look at New York where businesses are closing all over because of rampant theft. They aren't closing because people aren't there. They care closing because they can't afford to have half their wares walk out the door because New York is refusing to charge criminals because of "justice".
The world we live in is vastly different than it was and the doom loops aren't just because of remote workers.
Citation needed on all of that. It's not just retail closing up in NYC -- the rent is ludicrous, and no one wants to start renting at a lowe rate lest their appraisal goes down and their mortgage lender/city coffers start putting the pressure on the landlord
Corporate real estate is a different beast. Residential real estate and corporate real estate do not mirror each other in the market. One can be in high demand while the other has excess supply.
Residential landlords are also much different than dealing with corp real estate owners. The terms, length of lease, laws and many other factors are completely different.
Perhaps we need to encourage (via taxes?) convertible buildings that can either be corporate or residential with relative ease, similar to how in smaller towns you often have dentists and lawyers operating out of obviously converted houses.
This is primarily a building code issue for residential vs commercial construction.
Office generally try to maximize square footage, this tends to result in floor plans that are very awkward to adopt into residential use, primarily because the building code virtually everywhere has some sort of "natural light"/window requirement.
This means that purpose built residential high rises tend to be "skinnier" to have more windows per sq. ft of floor space. Not to mention the very expensive changes (hvac, plumbing, etc.) required to support residential use.
If the building code was changed so that the requirements for office and residential use buildings were closer then it would make future buildings more easily convertible between those use cases. It does not solve the problem of the existing buildings however..
I don't get how any of that is relevant when my claim is that the corporate rental rates is also too high and the financing for rentals shares the same concerns w.r.t rentable price regardless if it's residential or corporate landlords
Fwiw it's almost exclusively international developers running the conversions in Kansas City. I think Greystar might be the one with the largest footprint there.
Takes a few seconds. All major cities (even Fargo ND) have seen increased theft. This is unsurprising due to the economies in western countries (which is all i can speak to).
I believe that some retailer special interest group put out some numbers that did not support any real increase in shoplifting/shrinkage. Initially they made a claim otherwise but they ended up backpedaling. Oddly, the numbers around shrinkage from self-checkout seems to be persistent though.
I would be interested in an analysis of how refusals to prosecute are or are not affecting statistics. If you stop prosecuting a certain crime, does it appear like that crime is happening less on paper?
In the UK crime statistics are collected from a survey of people's experiences of crime that's completely independent from police/arrest records. Does the US not do this?
But the point is that would not tell us anything about the relative frequency of the crime when it's not prosecuted!
You are saying, effectively, that we know that smoke always comes from fire simply because when you light a fire, you see smoke.
You can't argue that policing deters crime simply because when there is policing, crimes are prosecuted. That makes a lot of bad assumptions about the nature of crime itself that I don't think a single criminologist would follow you on.
> You can't argue that policing deters crime simply because when there is policing, crimes are prosecuted.
Why couldn't you? Defund the police = less prosecutions, less policing = more criminals...
Why wouldn't someone argue easily proven points that more police = more safety (Yes, some corruption does exist but it's not like that corruption goes away when the police do.)
"...from that perspective, investing in more police officers to save lives provides a pretty good bang for the buck. Adding more police, they find, also reduces other serious crimes, like robbery, rape, and aggravated assault."
I don't see why this necessarily follows. Unless, e.g., the only reason you are not killing your neighbor is because your pretty sure you will be prosecuted for it.
To view the whole world as just itching to commit crimes as soon as they can get away with it is just already buying into the presuppositions of policing the original gp was interrogating.
Like its fine I guess if you want to have this pseudo-Hobbesian outlook to it all, but you can't pretend its something logical/rational. Because it simply isn't!
I know causation isn't correlation but all you have to do is look around and see that given more opportunities? people take advantage of others.
AKA: more "criminals".
"the only reason you're not killing your neighbor" thats a bit extreme but... yes.
"you can't pretend it's logical rational" Of course I can.
One, it is logical/rational - it's the same reason why people smoke less when you raise taxes on cigs. If it costs more? people will do it less. That cost might be taxes... or possible repercussions. Public shunning. Jailtime. Death penalty. You can pick your topic and if we look at push back against "bad" then the result is less bad.
Two, who says humans are logical/rational? We aren't that far out of the animal stage... we can pretend that we aren't driven by base emotions and the like. Humans are more often than not illogical and irrational. Making stupid decisions. IE: Gambling, drinking, drugs, cheating, etc.
So it's absolute defensible that more police (or, at a baser level, more consequences and more visibility of those consequences for bad decisions) results in less crime (or bad decisions). It's also absolutely defensible that humans are not rational/logical.
Most of the time. Certain crimes (eg public intoxication) often have an arrest followed by letting the person go when they’ve sobered up, so no official prosecution but not no arrest.
Yeah, but protestors are frequently arrested and charged with completely made up charges. It is just a tactic how to discouraged protests. The cops doing arrests know about it, prosecutors know about it, defense layers knows about it and protesters know about it.
It has nothing to do with deterring crimes or crime rates, it is just politics.
The police where I live are transparently useless. Someone tried to steal my car at bart. Even my auto insurance didn't bother asking for a police report while paying out $3k for a repair to the door. Everyone involved understands it's an utter waste of time and not a thing will happen.
Twenty years ago, in a small college town, my car was broken into and the stereo stolen. I called the police out and the cop said, “okay, what do you want me to do about it?”
Well, I don’t know. What should be done about this? I guess I thought my report might be tabulated, that perhaps a pawn shop or two might be called. My wife and I were living financial-aid-reimbursement-check to MGIB check to work-study check at the time. We got the one of the cheapest car stereos we could find, but it still hurt. We had just gotten it installed literally that day, and the next morning it was gone.
I’m sorry to have wasted your time, officer. There’s probably a kid with a one-hitter that you could arrest on your way back to the station.
That's very interesting. It would explain why the "high level" takes such as papers and articles keep saying crime is plummeting but all the anecdotal accounts are "crime is getting worse and worse and nobody does anything about it".
But that's been true for generations. It wouldn't explain some perceived surge now.
What does explain it is what explains many other things that don't match facts, about the economy, vaccines, climate change, election legitimacy, Obama's birthplace, etc. Whatever the conservative message machine focuses on, generally a large portion of the population believes.
Not so easy. A lot of crime in zones with high density of immigration goes unreported because immigrants are illegal. A lot of crime in shit neighborhoods goes unreported because of "code of silence" mentality.
That doesn't answer the parent's point. It doesn't really matter whether it's upgraded from a misdemeanor to a felony or not if it doesn't get prosecuted in the first place.
misdemeanors are more likely to be thrown out or never taken to court because of court/jail overcrowding. Felonies are likely to get prosecuted if you have a culprit. Misdemeanors... end up getting asked is this trip really necessary?
> Felonies are likely to get prosecuted if you have a culprit
Maybe, maybe not. From a very brief Google search, in 2022, 8% of felonies were not prosecuted, and of the remaining more than half of felony charges were downgraded by prosecutors to misdemeanors in NYC.
8% not being prosecuted would seem to mean that felonies are likely to get prosecuted, felonies getting downgraded to misdemeanors generally happens in the criminal proceedings process as part of a plea bargain and I would consider that as being "prosecuted" which covers a larger area than just being taken to trial.
It's a combination... DAs wont prosecute misdemeanors - which businesses won't then report... and DAs are also not prosecuting those higher crimes as well - which also means businesses won't report.
Part me of wonders... others are saying "all that theft is employee driven" as a talking point (yeah, I've got my own talking points too. Se'la'vie lol) - how much of it is old data - data from a decade ago before the soft on crime, defund the police crowd took over - and how much of it is employees not reporting crimes that waste everyones time in the current climate.
It'll be interesting to see if we get real data over the years and can look back at this failed experiment on "justice" objectively enough to show what an utter disaster it currently is.
So instead of it being $1000... it's $950... that's like me calling an item $10 when in reality its 9.99. The point still stands.
"Texas" Texas also has stand your ground laws and castle defense... so it's a lot easier to stop criminals. IE: Florida where a sheriff said "We have free gun classes so you can help save tax payers money when defending your property by not missing" (paraphrased).
The point still stands: CA took a $50 limit, bumped it up to $950, elects DAs that don't prosecute misdeamenors - and, as such, store owners don't report crimes that won't lead to prosecutions. Why waste the time? - so when you look at it from a statistical perspective? Oh look... crime numbers are down.
Never mind that more stuff is being stole on a more consistent basis... the lack of higher level crimes (Fewer felonies) and the lack of prosecutions (Why prosecute a misdemeanor as a DA... and why report stuff to police that won't get prosecuted as a business owner...) look better on paper but businesses and people are more unsafe than ever.
A Walgreens or CVS closed near my GF's flat in NYC. She's within 10 blocks of Central Park. The chain said it was due to too much shrinkage. It's been discussed on WNYC as well, tho those experts claimed most shrinkage is employee related.
I live closer to PHL and hear similar claims / rumours.
Self-reporting on these reasons from the business itself is basically useless. No one's fact checking their claims nor do they provide evidence when making these kinds of social-narrative driven claims like "taxes are too high!" or "too much theft!". Businesses, including chains, fail all the time and the owners/managers have an inherent incentive to try and deflect any blame on environmental factors so they are looked at more favourably by corporate.
True. But why not just say, "Rent is too high"? At least then, perhaps, the lease can be renegotiated. Or even, "we plan on opening a larger store" and just never do it.
I certainly agree there might be spin, but then why choose theft?
You can call it a "narrative", but then I get to shrink the "food desert" term into just a part of some narrative too, since I've seen personally how theft drives out grocers in MN here. One after another "underperforming".
The progressive D.A.'s and A.G.'s, who own this project of mass downward departure from normal sentencing, do not expect things to change overnight by taking pressure off (mainly) the poor and the young.
But in 5-10 years if crime is worse and society more stratified, their project can be called a failure.
I'm going to fight tooth and nail when someone calls NYC unsafe, but it's going to be very difficult to argue against the store closings because of theft (as at least one factor).
I've personally witnessed three blatant thefts in the last few years from my local Duane Reade (that closed down in April). Every time the clerks are like "pretty sure that was the same guy from yesterday". It's never violent or scary. It's just like watching a fight between homeless people in a subway station -- you look, think that's odd, and move on.
I suspect it's not all shrinkage though. I imagine continued trends where we buy more and more things via online retailers like Amazon and the growth of online/by mail pharmacies has contributed too. CVS/Duane Reade are still opening new locations too, so it can't be all that bad.
> I'm going to fight tooth and nail when someone calls NYC unsafe
Not the main thing I've been arguing, per-se but the fact that the national guard is being deployed into places like the subway seems to bolster the notion that NY isn't doing well.
"According to the NYPD, there were 570 reports of felony assault on trains or in stations in 2023, that's the highest number in more than 20 years and a 53% jump from pre-pandemic levels."
January crime was up 50% compared to 2023 - and yes, that's a 2 year snapshot. Statistics is the game of picking the two points and saying "SEE! I'M RIGHT!"
but the main points is that violent crime is up.
The main point of my comments is more general crime - its hard to say crime is down when recent decisions to raise the bar to charge people has literally made fewer things crimes so "crime is down" can be true from a "statistically reported" perspective while actual numbers are up.
Look at California that raised the level of misdemeanor to $950... so felonies are down? Gee... I wonder why? Even though objectively more crime is happening, less is getting reported because people won't waste their time on "misdemeanors" that won't get charged by soft on crime DA. Crimes down? True... but also a lie.
Crime is running rampant as criminality is now, for all intents, legal if you're under a threshold. (or, if you're of the right demographics to "atone for past injustice")
"stop and frisk" 1990 called and wants its talking point back.
S&F has been "unconstitutional" for over a decade - and that's not counting Defund The Police shenannery, open border policies and stuff like "bail reform".
IE: Illegal immigrants attacking police and getting released without bail.
IE: Soft on crime policies in large cities.
I seriously doubt a lot of these larger cities that are in the "doom loop" will have the same results with the current differences between 20-30 years ago and today with simply turning buildings into apartments.
Just look at New York where businesses are closing all over because of rampant theft. They aren't closing because people aren't there. They care closing because they can't afford to have half their wares walk out the door because New York is refusing to charge criminals because of "justice".
The world we live in is vastly different than it was and the doom loops aren't just because of remote workers.