San Francisco Chronicle Gets Responses They Deserve After Ridiculous 'Tolerance' Suggestion on Burglaries

Ever notice how we don’t hear a lot anymore from Democrats about “coexisting” and “tolerance”? Opinions vary as to the reasons why, but the most likely one, in my view, is that they’ve told on themselves a little too much over the last few years – especially the woke wing of the Democratic party – in terms of how little interest they have in actually being “tolerant” of differing viewpoints and “coexisting” with people who think differently.

But never fear. Though talk of “tolerance” is not as fashionable as it used to be in leftist circles, it’s still alive and well in certain newsrooms across the country, as exhibited by a tweet from the San Francisco Chronicle – which brought a new spin on the “tolerance” mantra, hinting at the possibility that maybe people should just learn to “tolerate” … burglaries and the like “as a part of city living”:

Residents and city leaders are searching for answers: should they tolerate burglaries as a part of city living, and focus on barricading homes?

Should repeat offenders get rehabilitation services, or be incarcerated so they can’t commit more crimes? https://t.co/F0kaALqjU1 pic.twitter.com/QMqOjXJFMl

— San Francisco Chronicle (@sfchronicle) November 5, 2021

The responses to the terrible tweet were understandably harsh, like the one Twitter user who wondered “Can you imagine living in a city where barricading yourself in your home is considered a more viable option than (checks notes)… arresting burglars??”

But the article was even worse:

Police have dispatched more officers to the Castro and nearby areas to address the [13% burglary/attempted burglary surge], fueled by a high-end bike boom and correlating with a drop in other forms of theft. The department also adjusted investigators’ work schedules, enabling them to respond to crimes in the moment. Such measures probably helped in arresting Tiller and Howerton, police said.

At the same time, residents and city leaders are searching for answers: Should they tolerate a high level of burglaries as a downside of city living, and focus on barricading their homes? Should people who are repeatedly accused of stealing be targeted with rehabilitation services, or incarcerated so they can’t commit more crimes?

Not mentioned in the piece? The city’s emphasis on not prosecuting non-violent misdemeanor crimes of up to $950, which emboldens career criminals in San Fransisco to feel like they can go into retail stores like Walgreens in broad daylight and brazenly steal stuff without anyone trying to stop them. Also not noted in the piece is that the city’s progressive District Attorney, Chesa Boudin “made decreasing penalties for nonviolent offenses a cornerstone of his agenda.” Sounds like a real peach, as RedState managing editor Jen Van Laar has extensively documented.

One thing the Chronicle did report on was how the issue of rising crime in the city involving repeat offenders was frustrating for those who supported “criminal justice reform” initiatives like, you know, releasing non-violent offenders back out on the streets without them having faced any hard time:

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman is frustrated. He’s a longtime supporter of criminal justice reform whose policy views evolved as he grappled with property crime in his district — a persistent problem that makes residents feel vulnerable in their own homes.

“It raises tricky questions about incarceration,” Mandelman said. “Because so far we’ve been unable to release (Tiller and Howerton) without them committing more crimes. And the question for reformers is, ‘What do we do with someone like that?’”

[…]

Boudin and other policymakers believe that incarceration fails to address the underlying factors in property crime, such as poverty and addiction.

Good grief. It’s no wonder that most San Franciscans desperately want a fully-funded police department. It’s also no wonder that a staggering 40% of residents surveyed earlier this year said they were considering moving out of the city in the near future.

Seriously, why would anyone want to live in a city that effectively incentivizes criminals to keep doing what they’re doing, sets economic conditions that make it near impossible for the Average Joe and Jane to be able to afford to live there, throws money at the homeless crisis without doing anything meaningful to actually curb the problem, tells drug addicts they’ll have a fresh needle waiting for them when they’re ready for their next hit, and has become what some have called a “poop paradise“?

To emphasize the point, here’s a recent KPIX report underlining the frustrations many of the city’s residents feel:

KPIX-TV reports that neighbors in Democrat-run San Francisco are “living in constant fear” due to rampant drug trafficking, violence, homelessness, and property damage in the city. pic.twitter.com/LEvmTgpBCA

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) November 8, 2021

Don’t get me wrong. San Francisco is a beautiful, iconic city. The only problem is they are becoming iconic for all the wrong reasons, embarrassing things for which no city – whether big or small – wants to be most remembered. But hey, at least they’re on their way to placing high-tech “designer trash cans” on city streets. Because priorities and stuff.

As for the Chronicle, we anxiously await the headlines we’re likely to see from them next year:

Next year this time:

“Is the home invasion really an ‘invasion’ or just a impromptu visit? Residents debate the topic…” https://t.co/lWvBLQtk6r

— 44MagnumBlue (@44MagnumBlue1) November 8, 2021

Now that’s what I would call “progress” – progressive-style.