This sort of lame duplicitous apologia is little but more of the same rhetoric that got the Bay Area into this predicament in the first place. Here is my summary of the article "Sure it's bad, but actually it's not really all that bad. It's not media hysteria, but actually the media that blowing this out of proportion and you're all caring about the wrong thing. Yes it's bad for upscale shops to be robbed, but actually it's not really that bad and you're probably just a rich yuppie for caring. The police can't stop mob burglaries because the mobs are too violent, but also the mobs are just dumb kids and you shouldn't be worried about it."

He's pretending to give a shit but each time that's just a setup for him to downplay the issue and scold you for not caring about other things instead.

This essay is well-articulated nonsense.

"I don’t really know if there’s a crime wave regardless of the perception that there is one.

...

What really gets to me though is that there _is_ a clear crime wave happening. Oakland’s at its 127th homicide as of typing this."

He seems to be arguing that the police should be spending more effort stopping crime in poor neighborhoods, that doesn't get as much publicity as smash-and-grabs in Union Square. Fine with me!

> it starts with an unnecessary felony conviction from a poor decision, which initiated a chain reaction that ultimately destroyed people rather than helped them.

The crux of the author's argument seems to be that the punishment outweighs the crime. But I am still hard-pressed to see how the alternative of not pursuing criminal charges is any better.

> Many of those kids who participated are probably suffering from anxiety right now, knowing any day the police will show up to their door and arrest them, let alone the aggressive media coverage they’re getting. For many of those youths, that terrible anxiety or a simple arrest is enough to never do it again. Yet the Bay Area’s DAs are all announcing felony charges for those involved.

Would they be 'suffering' the anxiety if the consequences were less severe? How do we know they would never do it again? In fact, aren't they just as likely to be pulled into a life of crime if the punishment is too lenient as too severe?

This column posits that this crime might not happen if these young perpetrators had jobs. We are living in a time when businesses are cutting back store hours or closing permanently because they can’t find enough employees. The notion that these young people wouldn’t be attacking jewelry stores with hammers if they could just get honest work is just nuts.

I can’t sleep at night knowing I can’t shop at Louis Vitton at Union Square one night a year.

Article has no insight.