
SF car break-ins hit record highs in 2017 - dawhizkid
http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/SF-vehicle-break-ins-at-record-levels-police-try-12464043.php?t=79b5d987be
======
l4yao
Why not just set up a few sting operations? I wonder if there's a reluctance
to act on these crimes because of the theory that allowing minor crimes like
these contribute to less crime overall.

I had my car window smashed. Calling SFPD didn't seem useful, they took my
verbal report over the phone and emailed me a copy for insurance purposes. End
of story. In my neighborhood, an entire residential block will have been hit
overnight, with broken glass every few cars. SFPD must get many calls in the
morning.

>> "The latest data come after the Police Department decided in September to
eliminate its 18-person citywide Patrol Bureau Task Force, instead assigning
more officers to foot patrol in hopes of deterring criminals"

Anecdotal, but I've never seen a single one of these officers.

~~~
ncr100
Cars with 360º mixed IR+flash visible-light cameras could help. Window-break
detecting alarms connected to the police via cell network, uploading 'I might
have just been broken in to' messages.

I've walked past a would-be glass smasher. Grubby baggy-clothed drug user
(distinct antsy posture) with a flashlight skulking on poorly lit section of
street flicking the light on only to inspect cars. Turned his face from me
when I walked past. 2am, walking my stomach-ailing dog in the Hayes.

I've been suspicious of pairs of bicyclists with backpacks, riding in no
particular direction, one keeping a distance from another seemingly as a sort
of spotter. 10pm near the sf ballet.

Stings might help and be less surveillance-statey than a tech solution.

~~~
DrScump

      Cars with 360º mixed IR+flash visible-light cameras could help.
    

They won't have any evidence value, since the D.A. won't prosecute (police
won't even pursue thieves they see). At best, it could have deterrent value
for the ignorant.

------
coolspot
Thanks, prop 57.

------
galdosdi
How about, if you care so much about smashed windows, just parking your car on
private property instead of taking up a piece of very valuable publicly owned
real estate FOR FREE, for the low-value use of car parking, in the middle of a
place where that bit of land could house dozens of people if housing were
built on it (in aggregate)?

Everyone pays taxes to maintain that bit of pavement but only a few car owners
actually benefit from it. I'm not sympathetic, but if car owners who park in
the street actually paid the fair price to rent that bit of pavement, then I
would be.

And I'm putting my property where my mouth is -- I own a car and I park it on
the street in a similar crowded city (NYC) that should not give away free
street parking either, and I don't complain about the occasional damage. It's
still much cheaper than paying for parking. (I've had spray paint, hammer
dents, 3 smashed windows, and a piece of pizza left under my hood on my engine
over a couple years, and the total repair costs are tiny compared to what the
cheapest nearby parking would cost.)

(I'm only half serious, obviously it's still a crime and is wrong, but, it's
kind of messed up that a few car owners like myself get to take over a piece
of the street for free while everyone else has to pay to pave it for us, to
police it for us, to put up with second-order crime that comes along with
putting tempting valuables all over the streets overnight, and to forego
building much more useful or at least lucrative things like housing on it.
Free street parking is the real crime.)

~~~
beamatronic
Don't you need an area permit in SF? And those require a fee?

Tried to get one years ago but my specific address was not in their giant book
so I was denied.

