What law did he sign that does that?
Economy The collapse of downtown Los Angeles
- Thread starter Eric Silva 2.0
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 14,187
- Reaction score
- 9,457
I always thought real life Santa Ana got a raw deal, like this motherfucker's been dead for a long ass time and we still gonna say his winds caused a November forest fire?
When did stealing get legalized, de factor or de jure?
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 8,811
- Reaction score
- 10,010
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2020
- Messages
- 2,608
- Reaction score
- 3,422
Why Shoplifting Is Now De Facto Legal In California
Google “Shoplifting in San Francisco” and you will find more than 100,000 hits. And you will find lots of YouTube videos, where you can watch a single thief, or an entire gang, walk into an SF Walgreens or CVS and empty the shelves. Most walk in, go about their pilfering, and then walk out...
Shoplifting in California is only a Misdemeanor up to $950. Crime increased due to law. Gavin did nothing except work on a bill saying they will actually prosecute organized crime but not individuals. This does nothing, as most of this crime is done by individuals and organized crime efforts can make it look like they are individual efforts.
Gavin could create laws to do something and talk with the lax prosecutors to do something, instead he tries to focus on destroying California.
See article listed above.
Please point out the part that legalizes stealing.County of Los Angeles - Law Office of the Public Defender | What is Prop 47?
pubdef.lacounty.gov
Again, what did Gavin due that downgraded shoplifting to a misdemeanor? I don't think you understand how propositions work.
Not to mention I'm skeptical that tossing someone in jail for shoplifting is going to lead them to being a productive member of society, as opposed to recidivism now that they've been integrated into the criminal justice system's population.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 8,811
- Reaction score
- 10,010
Because people with hundreds of shoplifting arrests are simply arrested for the day and let out at night to shoplift again. It's effectively legal to shoplift under $950 because it seems most California prosecutors don't bother pressing charges for misdemeanours, as evidenced by the large amounts of people that have dozens of shoplifting arrests (and probably a lot more times they didn't get arrested). For example:
Perhaps this California police officer from the article can give you some perspective:
I didn't claim Newsom was responsible for Prop 47. I did claim earlier in the thread that he chooses not to clean up the streets, as he admitted himself during Xi Jinping's visit.
So what do you want? A 3 strikes law? I don't pretend to have easy answers on this, but the 3 strikes law was pretty disastrous and ineffective. Not to mention simply imprisoning more people is unsustainable without sinking absurd amounts of money into more prisons -- and all for incredibly iffy outcomes, at best.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2005
- Messages
- 35,827
- Reaction score
- 14,688
I dont even go to DTLA and I live 20 something miles away. Covid mandates and business shut downs that newsom made us follow are responsible for all the empty buildings those businesses had to pay tens of thousands for the parklets and other requirements and some never recovered. I think businesses here paid 65 k for parklets one restaurant called leos here has to close at 3pm because it can no longer afford the overhead till 10 pm before all the covid mandates it was a thriving restaurant in 2019 people were literally lined up to the sidewalk.
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2005
- Messages
- 35,827
- Reaction score
- 14,688
They were even in jail for a day some folks were serving 4 hours in jail.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 12,173
- Reaction score
- 2,890
It’s called Amazon among other things. Thanks Trump
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 11,679
- Reaction score
- 1,968
Well California is one of the largest economies on the PLANET, not US, the planet.
It is a global epicentre. People from around the planet gravitate to the state.
By what metric are policies failed?
States with abysmal poverty paralleling 3rd world countries. Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas.
True welfare states that depend on federal aid for survival
Those ARE states where policies are failing
No one says, "Im moving the Kentucky to make it big."
This forum never bitches about those floundering states between CA and NY for a reason.. No one cares.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 29,455
- Reaction score
- 5,814
San Francisco says hold my syringe
Imprisoning consistent repeat offenders may seem unsustainable because of the obvious associated costs, but of course simply allowing them to commit a greater number of crimes with no significant repercussions also has associated costs.
Those costs are often thought to be borne by private companies (through theft insurance) but of course are in fact borne by the entirety of the public, from the repercussions of higher insurance to business shuttering, to the increased breakdown of good public order.
Just letting your career criminals freely not-function in society harms your society. Obviously the goal should be to lessen the number of those people in the next generation, which is t what most people and politicians will discuss when pressed, but that does absolutely nothing to impact the current population.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 8,811
- Reaction score
- 10,010
I absolutely know the answer is not to allow people to shoplift dozens of times without harsh consequences. Not limiting shoplifting to misdemeanors if the person has shoplifted dozens of times in the past (maybe three strikes and the misdemeanor becomes eligible to be prosecuted as a felony), allowing prosecutors the ability to charge felonies where they feel appropriate. And ensuring you elect officials and DAs who actually want to protect victims and not the offenders. I think it's obvious that Proposition 47 was simply bad legislation.
Imprisoning people does cost money, but so does crime, and to a much larger extent. Crime is shutting down businesses which are the lifeblood of an economy. Businesses provide products and services to customers and jobs to the local population. The detrimental effects of a business closing are gigantic, you lose the jobs, the products and services, the competition of prices for those products and services. Losing jobs is bad enough, but now all those people who lost their jobs are also going to compete in the labour market which drives wages down further and make it harder for everyone in their sector to find a job as well. Less people having jobs generally leads to more crime as well. Not to mention crime and general lawlessness often breeds more crime, has more people on edge and generally has a depressing effect on the population.
And I just have to look at two real world examples recently, California's Proposition 47 vs El Salvador's rounding up of criminals. It's clear that tough on crime policies reduced El Salvador's murder rate from the highest in the world by far to the second lowest in the Western hemisphere, a reduction of 98% since 2015. Now I am not saying to go as totalitarian as they did, but it's clear that punishing criminals has promising results. We don't have exclusively gangsters easily identifiable by gang tattoos, but we do have people with long rap sheets walking down the street that we often should remove from society.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 8,811
- Reaction score
- 10,010
It's not about where California or New York are currently, it's where they were and where they are going because of their policies. California was an amazing place from the 70s-00s, mainly due to it's geography and weather attracting Hollywood and big tech companies. It has an amazing climate for shooting movies consistently due to it's consistent climate and varied diversity of geographical attractions. The climate is also very pleasant to live in, not too hot or cold, not too much extreme weather. Only real issue are wildfires, which actually is much more a consequence of direct governmental policy than something like earthquakes or hurricanes. It's also situated in America making it probably the most attractive place to live in America geographically (maybe behind Hawaii, depending on who you ask).
Despite everything California has going for it over every other state in the country, in the early part of the century, growth stopped. In 2020 it recorded it's first population loss ever as a state. Every year since then it has lost people. Despite the economy and climate.
California and New York (and DC) are worst in terms of net migration rates. In fact there's a clear correlation between democrat run states and losing people:
List of U.S. states and territories by net migration - Wikipedia
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2013
- Messages
- 55,962
- Reaction score
- 27,280
It's not about where California or New York are currently, it's where they were and where they are going because of their policies. California was an amazing place from the 70s-00s, mainly due to it's geography and weather attracting Hollywood and big tech companies. It has an amazing climate for shooting movies consistently due to it's consistent climate and varied diversity of geographical attractions. The climate is also very pleasant to live in, not too hot or cold, not too much extreme weather. Only real issue are wildfires, which actually is much more a consequence of direct governmental policy than something like earthquakes or hurricanes. It's also situated in America making it probably the most attractive place to live in America geographically (maybe behind Hawaii, depending on who you ask).
Despite everything California has going for it over every other state in the country, in the early part of the century, growth stopped. In 2020 it recorded it's first population loss ever as a state. Every year since then it has lost people. Despite the economy and climate.
California and New York (and DC) are worst in terms of net migration rates. In fact there's a clear correlation between democrat run states and losing people:
List of U.S. states and territories by net migration - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Cope however you want, those Democrat areas of the country are still carrying the country by a lot.
Like it's not even close. The economic activity in California and the tristate area outpaces everywhere else despite declines in population which can also be explained by more ordinary means other than just "bad democrat policy".
This is a silly correlation = causation argument that doesn't make much sense if you actually try to think about it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2010
- Messages
- 11,679
- Reaction score
- 1,968
Its not about where they are now its about where they were in the 70s?It's not about where California or New York are currently, it's where they were and where they are going because of their policies. California was an amazing place from the 70s-00s, mainly due to it's geography and weather attracting Hollywood and big tech companies. It has an amazing climate for shooting movies consistently due to it's consistent climate and varied diversity of geographical attractions. The climate is also very pleasant to live in, not too hot or cold, not too much extreme weather. Only real issue are wildfires, which actually is much more a consequence of direct governmental policy than something like earthquakes or hurricanes. It's also situated in America making it probably the most attractive place to live in America geographically (maybe behind Hawaii, depending on who you ask).
Despite everything California has going for it over every other state in the country, in the early part of the century, growth stopped. In 2020 it recorded it's first population loss ever as a state. Every year since then it has lost people. Despite the economy and climate.
California and New York (and DC) are worst in terms of net migration rates. In fact there's a clear correlation between democrat run states and losing people:
List of U.S. states and territories by net migration - Wikipedia
Where places like Manhattan and LA were like in the 70s ?
What are you even on about?
Who cares about population growth in the most populous states in the country? Both states have not just the highest incomes/populations but some of the highest concentrations of wealth, that is NOT distributed.
It makes sense in a post covid digital/work from home age that people could migrate to more affordable places. You can get a 10 bedroom mansion in middle America for the price of a 2 bedroom condo in Santa Monica, or a 1 bedroom in San Fran, and forget about Manhattan.
In a state where you are competing with millionaires it makes sense to move somewhere more affordable.
How is that an indictment in a capitalist country?
(Unless you're complaining the wealth isnt distributed fairly, which is a commie thing...
Which CA hater accuse CA of being.
But gotta chose one.)
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 8,811
- Reaction score
- 10,010
Who cares? The projected budget shortfalls care. The fact that major companies are exiting, taking high paying jobs with them. The death spiral of cities that people are going through makes people care. And the places receiving tens of thousands of former Californians care.
California is also losing people to places that are also expensive, like Washington. And other states that are in the top 10 most expensive in the country are not nearly losing as many people at the rate that California and New York do.
Also cost of living is simply not a good argument because California and New York have always been way more expensive than the rest of the country. That hasn't changed for many decades now. In fact the rest of the country is getting more expensive at a faster rate than California and New York which should make them more attractive.
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2020
- Messages
- 2,608
- Reaction score
- 3,422
"Legalized stealing" is just a phrase. Obviously stealing is not legalized. It is just not enforced in Gavins California so stealing runs rampant. Theft is out of control to the point of driving retailers away, yet greasy Gavin does nothing.
Stealing in California can be compared to smoking pot. Pot is illegal at the federal level, yet not enforced.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Who do you believe is the most fascinating historical figure?- Latest: Unknown Pleasures
