Auto break-ins an epidemic in S.F.
Too many think city leaders are ignoring the problem
When my car was broken into last month, I became by my estimate the 26,000th person in San Francisco to meet that fate this year — and that’s just the people who bothered to report the crime. People at every level of the socioeconomic ladder, in every corner of the city, have been affected by this crime epidemic. But, as I’ve learned over the past few weeks, city government is long on excuses and short on plans to solve the problem.
The number of auto burglaries has tripled since 2010, with no signs of slowing. In fact, there were 5,333 more car break-ins by the end of October 2017 than in the same period of 2016, according to Police Department crime statistics.
The district attorney blames the police and judges, the police blame the district attorney for undercharging cases, and City Hall turns the issue into a debate about homelessness. But leadership is not about casting blame. Leadership is about taking responsibility and fixing problems.
In the interest of starting a productive conversation on how to reduce auto burglaries in San Francisco, here are the three most important things I’ve learned about addressing car break-ins: It is not about “criminalizing”
the homeless. Although some car break-ins surely are crimes of opportunity by those battling financial desperation and/or drug addiction, the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury found that nearly 80 percent of auto burglaries are actually committed by organized gangs who come into the city specifically to break in to cars. Given the identity of the culprits, increased enforcement and aggressive prosecution of auto burglaries need not, and should not, target the homeless population.
It is not about Prop. 47 — at least not directly. The 2014 initiative, which reduced most drug and theft offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, is often blamed for the rapid rise in property crime in San Francisco and elsewhere in the state. While we should have a dialogue about the unintended consequences of that proposition, courts have held that Prop. 47 does not apply to auto burglaries. Thus, if a police officer or district attorney tells you that a car break-in cannot be prosecuted as a felony because of Prop. 47, you should direct their attention to the California Court of Appeal’s holding in People vs. Acosta (2015) that auto burglaries can still be prosecuted as felonies. If prosecutors choose not to charge a break-in as a felony, that’s their decision, not a limitation in the law. Many victims believe city government simply does not care about this problem. Of the dozen or so friends and neighbors I spoke to who had gone through the same ordeal and filed a police report, none had received more than an email confirmation of their report. Not one person felt the crime had been taken seriously. Not one person had obtained any semblance of justice. When a type of crime that directly or indirectly touches every San Francisco resident is routinely ignored, it erodes people’s faith in government and their leaders. That damage to the public trust is harder to replace than a broken window.
All this said, there is reason to be hopeful.
In response to growing outrage over the explosion of property crime, the San Francisco Police Department recently announced an expansion of officer foot patrols in each police district across the city. In addition to the community policing benefits of such a program, the increased officer presence in high-crime neighborhoods could deter organized gangs from committing crimes in the first place and improve the low rate of apprehension (4 percent in San Francisco, compared with the national average of 14 percent) when auto burglaries do occur. This program is supported by the Mayor’s Office and by members of both the progressive and moderate camps on the Board of Supervisors. But as initial results from the program have shown, foot patrols themselves will not have any impact unless arrests are followed by meaningful prosecution. That means felony charges and gang and weapons enhancements when supported by the evidence.
If that happens, I’m hopeful we can begin to stem the tide of this serious problem.