San Francisco Chronicle - (Sunday)
S. F. thieves put hot cars to work on other crimes
Auto thefts in San Francisco have rocketed up 33% this year, with many of the vehicles being used as getaway cars in other crimes, police say.
“They use them for everything from robberies to more serious crimes,” said Cmdr. Raj Vaswani of the San Francisco Police Department’s investigative division.
Slap a stolen license plate from the same make of car, and you have an instant, hardtotrace getaway vehicle — or battering ram to slam though a storefront.
“You can drive it to Union Square, run into a store and grab the merchandise, then run back out and make your getaway,” Vaswani said.
“They do the same at Walgreens and CVS organized thefts.”
To date, 5,474 autos have been stolen in the city this year, compared with 4,103 in the same period last year. Burglaries are also up by 45%, with 6,740 reported this year as of Friday, the SFPD reports.
“If you notice, the uptick in car thefts is coinciding with the uptick in burglaries,” Vaswani said.
In general, the thieves prefer nondescript cars and vans.
“Cars that blend in,” Vaswani said.
They often target cars parked along unlighted stretches of residential streets. And with more people staying at home during the coronavirus shutdown, there are often more cars on neighborhood streets to pick from.
From July to November, San Francisco police arrested 288 people for vehicle theft. If you add in arrests by other agencies operating in the city, like the the California Highway Patrol, the number jumps to 331. That’s roughly the same arrest rate as last year.
As often as not, the suspects are released within one day, pending trial. That even goes for repeat offenders.
“In one sample, we have this guy who has been arrested 13 times in the last 15 months,” Vaswani said.
And he was arrested again Thursday — riding a stolen motorcycle.
The good news is that the cars are usually recovered and have not been stripped of parts.
On the other hand, “some come back with bullet holes in them because they have been involved in a shooting with a gang in a rival neighborhood,” Vaswani said.
At least that’s work for the body shops.
Marina muzzle: It may be hard to believe in a city that puts the First Amendment above all else, but the San Francisco Board of Supervisors was on track to outtrump President Trump by pulling official city advertising from a neighborhood newspaper because the supes didn’t like its coverage of them or city issues.
The target was the
Marina Times, one of eight neighborhood papers paid to carry the city’s legal notices. The Times’ contract was worth about $ 5,000 a year. Not a makeorbreak amount, but the paper has been publishing the notices since 2012.
Usually, the annual vote is pretty much pro forma on the contracts that qualified, but at the Dec. 1 meeting, progressive Supervisor Dean Preston, who was upset about the paper’s coverage of the city’s homeless problem, moved to have the Times’ contract pulled.
“There are a number of important outlets that provide useful and accurate information to the residents of the city and county of San Francisco,” Preston said. “There is, however, one outlet on this list that I would not include in the former category, and that is the Marina Times. ... I don’t believe a single penny of public money should be directed from the city and county of San Francisco to support their efforts,” Preston said.
Fellow progressive Supervisor Hillary Ronen also supported cutting the Times’ contract saying, “Our responsibility as supervisors is to decide whether or not we want to support an outfit that presents lies as fact and when presented with facts refuting those lies, fails to retract them.”
By San Francisco standards, the Times would probably fall in the moderate part of the political spectrum. And in recent years has published several reports of alleged City Hall corruption.
“I’ve criticized the progressives but also endorsed Supervisor
Aaron Peskin. I’ve criticized Mayor London Breed and her moderateappointed city officials as well,” said Marina Times Editor in Chief
Susan Dyer Reynolds.
“They just want to enforce the First Amendment when it benefits them.”
Supervisor Catherine Stefani, whose district includes the Marina and who has been criticized by the Times herself, was stunned by the move to cut the contract.
“What I was hearing could have been said by Donald Trump,” Stefani said.
The supervisors voted 74 to put the Times’ contract on hold for a week.
In addition to Preston and Ronen, Supervisors
Gordon Mar, Norman Yee, Shamann Walton, Matt Haney and Sandra Lee Fewer voted to put the contract on hold.
Stefani, along with Supervisors Peskin,
Rafael Mandelman and
Ahsha Safaí, voted against putting the contract on hold.
Word of the supervisors’ action spread quickly, and soon calls and emails questioning the vote started coming in from free speech advocates.
On Tuesday, with nary a peep, all seven supervisors who had voted to put it on hold promptly voted to renew the Times’ contract, and it passed unanimously.
“I changed my mind on the vote because many journalists reached out to me to say even if I am right, if we stop buying ads in the Marina Times it would have a chilling effect on free speech. That’s the last thing I want to do,” Ronen said.
Ya think?
San Francisco Chronicle columnist Phil Matier appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Matier can be seen on the KGOTV morning and evening news and can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7: 50 a. m. and 5: 50 p. m. Got a tip? Call 4157778815, or email pmatier@ sfchronicle. com. Twitter: @ philmatier