SACRAMENTO — Several years ago, I was shopping in a Santa Ana big-box store when a nondescript young man asked the clerk to show him a video game system — probably a $200-to-$300 item — that was kept in a locked cabinet. She handed it to him and he then nonchalantly put it under his arm and slowly walked away with it, exiting through the alarmed exit door. Employees and customers (myself included) just stood there and watched this theft take place.
READ MORE from Steven Greenhut: Anaheim’s Shadow Government Exposed
It’s not clear what anyone could have done about it. Many retailers have a policy forbidding non-security employees from confronting thieves, for the obvious reason that it can potentially lead to an escalation endangering everyone in the area. Nevertheless, I was struck by the brazenness of the crime — and was left feeling sorry for businesses that are trying to put the kibosh on such losses. Capitol One data shows that California has the highest (in overall numbers and per capita) retail-theft losses, amounting to nearly $8 billion in 2021.
In the ensuing years, the retail-theft problem has reached nearly crisis levels in the state. The perpetrators aren’t just individual thieves but organized networks of criminals who coordinate their activities on social media. The Los Angeles Times reported in 2021 that “retail gangs steal nearly 25% of total sales in San Francisco and Oakland combined, which amounted to around $15.5 billion in 2019, according to the state agency that tracks sales tax.”
“Kids Love to Shop in Newsomland,” editorial cartoon by Tom Stiglich for The American Spectator, Aug. 17, 2023.
There are plenty of reasons for the nation’s crazy level of inflation (outrageous government spending, supply chain disruptions from COVID-19 controls, federal monetary policy, etc.), but retail prices are bound to increase if 25 percent — not a typo — of total sales just walk out the door. I heard a presentation in which the CEO of Raley’s, the major grocery chain in the Sacramento area, talked about the way crime (in addition to overregulation) is pummeling his business.
Nearly half of retailers in San Francisco’s main shopping district have exited, with crime at the top of the list for reasons. “At least 22 big-name businesses have closed or announced plans to flee the area around San Francisco’s Union Square since January 2022, including trendy retailers like Anthropologie, Banana Republic and Crate & Barrel, as well as the investment firm that owns two of the city’s biggest hotels,” the New York Post reported in June. (READ MORE: Assisted Suicide Surges in California)
Attorney General Rob Bonta stepped up state efforts to combat organized retail theft earlier this year, but apparently some perpetrators haven’t gotten the message. “A Los Angeles Nordstrom store was ransacked by a mob of more than 30 people on Saturday, with the suspects getting away with nearly $100,000 worth of handbags and clothes,” informed an Aug. 13 Fox News report. This “flash mob” descended on the store during prime Saturday afternoon shopping hours.
One would think that the California Legislature would address such pressing problems rather than stay focused on its usual agenda of expanding programs and taxes. But its latest big idea suggests that Californians are in far better shape when lawmakers do nothing at all. Democratic Sen. Dave Cortese of San José introduced Senate Bill 553, which, as the Orange County Register opined, “amounts to an invitation to shoplift.”
The legislation is designed to prevent workplace violence and was authored in response to a horrific mass shooting by an employee at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) in 2021. “I’ve worked with VTA to implement significant workplace protections since then, but California must do everything needed to protect workers and the public, including retail customers,” Cortese said in a statement.
Yet S.B. 553 will do nothing to prevent these kinds of tragedies but instead will hobble the ability of private businesses — especially small ones that can’t afford to hire a full-time security guard — to deal with more run-of-the-mill property crimes. Mainly, the legislation forbids stores from requiring non-security employees to confront potential shoplifters. It also imposes a series of training and paperwork burdens.
California gas-station owners recently protested at the Capitol, arguing that it will make it impossible for them to deal with the common theft problems they encounter. “We stand our ground, they get scared and 99% of the time they drop their merchandise and just walk away,” one mini-mart owner told the Sacramento Bee. These small, often-immigrant-owned businesses should be free to adopt policies that work for them. The legislation is scheduled for the Appropriations Committee next month.
If it becomes law, every store will have to maintain a “violent incident log” of confrontations. They will have to regularly assess their staffing levels as they might pertain to workplace violence. They will have to provide active-shooter training and shoplifter training for employees. The bill also requires “wellness referrals” for employees.
This is typical of the Democratic Legislature. Instead of dealing with wrongdoers, it imposes burdens and handcuffs on businesses. This bill conflates different, largely unrelated issues. Dealing with active shooters has nothing to do with brazen shoplifters. Criminal-justice reform is about tailoring sentences properly and providing ways to reduce criminal behavior — not about giving a free pass to people to just take what they want from stores. (RELATED: California’s China Syndrome Exposed)
As the California Chamber of Commerce explained in opposition to the bill:
SB 553 will not summon armed guards to every retail establishment in the state, or improve police response times, or prevent oral threats from being spoken. Instead, it will, at its core, require businesses to keep more records of these events, and create administrative burdens to review these records repeatedly.
The group predicts massive regulatory fines for California businesses, as the bill essentially gives potential shoplifters a vehicle to sue store owners who improperly confront them. Orange County Register columnist Thomas Elias explains what it likely will mean for shoppers: “[R]etailers of all types will keep almost all goods of significant value behind locked glass panels, thus preventing shoppers from examining possible purchases except under supervision.”
And, of course, more of us will just watch thieves brazenly walk out the door with merchandise. This is nuts, but I suppose you’re not surprised, given how the Legislature operates.
Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.
