Hacker News Reader

Comment by pdx6 | Hacker News Reader

Eventually shops in eastern San Francisco will need to implement mantraps and buzz customers in to browse. Another is to only offer kiosk service.

Think of it like always having to go to the pharmacy counter to get anything from CVS or Safeway. Call ahead, app, delivery, or curbside are the other options.

Since law enforcement doesn’t appear to have the tools to stop shop lifting, the stores will need to adapt to stay in business.

One last thing, not in the article, but gangs will rob Walgreens delivery trucks in broad daylight too.

View on HN

No, you will just not be able to shop in San Francisco. This is a massive country and San Francisco is a tiny city that doesn't even have a million people. There are over 9,000 Walgreens locations nationwide. The company will do just fine after closing a few dozen of them.

Other cities lag what happens in San Francisco.

and/or they learn what not to do from San Fransisco.

That's a little extreme. Walgreens may shut down in SF, but some local business will step in to fill the demand and they'll likely use techniques like the parent suggested. Either way, I don't think you will "just not be able to shop in San Francisco".

More like they’ll close and shoppers will go elsewhere, such as online or out of the city. It’s a loss in revenue for the city either way, and a pretty sad reality.

Who actually wants to operate the store, when the gangsters have clearly made an abundance of examples?

People who want money? There's plenty of convenience stores in crime-ridden parts of the country that operate with extreme security measures.

So does Walgreens not want money then or why are they shutting down? If a big business like Walgreens can’t make it profitable, why do you think a local business will do any better? I find it frustrating the level of denial and lack of common sense displayed here. Clearly the shoplifting issue is worse in SF than other cities due to its policies which essentially encourage it.

I think you're arguing past me. I agree the policies are garbage.

However, just because Walgreens is shutting down in SF, it doesn't mean that no one can make it profitable. They have a standardized way of running their stores and it might not be worth it to run one like that in SF. Someone who's local may be able to run a profitable store with a different approach. You might not get as much selection and you might not have as pleasant a shopping experience, but it can still work. There's plenty of pharmacy-type stores in the ghettos of America.

I think what you're saying is that you're frustrated at the trajectory of San Francisco and you want it to change. I do too, but I see it as inevitable. Now it's time to watch it all slowly crumble.

A guy I know was an assistant manager for Walgreens. He would get called in to pinch hit, sometimes in the less optimal parts of the city. He told me a story about a guy who was methodically hacking his way through the steel shutter they used to close the store at night. They had called the police an hour ago and they had not come. He had gotten a hole in large enough to get his arm through and was flailing about. The police finally showed when he was shoulders-in.

That Walgreens isn't there anymore.

The Gas station near where I live (California and Steiner) buzzes you in if you are there outside core hours.

The Burberry store near Union square buzzes you in at all hours. Well at least the two times I visited.

I'd be suprised if they'd go with any system except their current one. They probably make a good chunk of money by having people walk around the store and impulse buy things like magazines and snacks, and this also seems to be a local issue. The Walgreens near me has titled mirrors high up on the walls so staff can see down every isle no matter where they are, and I've seen the manager catch somebody stealing, so he made them empty their pockets then kicked them out of the store.

>I've seen the manager catch somebody stealing, so he made them empty their pockets then kicked them out of the store.

And what if they refuse? From the other comments here it sounds like the manager won't be able to do anything if the thief didn't copmly, continued putting things in his pocket and walked out.

All of these will result in much higher prices.

> Eventually shops in eastern San Francisco will need to implement mantraps

This seems like one of the easiest things to do and the banks in California do this even if they're in low crime areas.

Why haven't the stores done this rather than closing?

I suspect the answer is that this is a nice excuse to get rid of underperforming stores that they would get dinged for racism if they closed them wholesale without a PR excuse.

The size of the store and the number of employees needed to maintain adequate mantraps would be too many - and you’d basically need to shadow every customer anyway.

Another option is to use AI, like what Standard Cognition does. A customer registers a profile in the mantrap (via app, etc) and then is buzzed into the shop. The cameras just log whatever the customer walks out with — it doesn’t matter if they shove it in their pants or put it in a bag. Clerks in the store exist just for assistance.

It all gets billed to the customer’s account once they leave the store.

Ironically, their demo store is on 6th and Market next door to where Huckleberry bikes was.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com