[Retric]

That rate of property crime is a direct result of prosperity. In poor areas there is less stuff worth stealing and people spend more effort protecting it.

The average house in Riverdale Chicago is worth less than the average car in Silicon Vally. People there make less money from armed robbery than someone can shoplift from a Silicon Valley Apple store. So shockingly with different risk/reward payoffs you get more property crime instead of armed robbery.

[Thorrez]

According to https://www.neighborhoodscout.com

SF property crime: 57.01/1000

SF median home: $1,195,367

SF per-capita income: $64k

NYC property crime: 18.64/1000

NYC median home: $1,126,049

NYC per-capita income: $73k

Palo Alto property crime: 22.88/1000

Palo Alto median home: $2,363,833

Palo Alto per-capita income: $89k

Chicago property crime: 32.48/1000

Chicago median home: $272,043

Chicago per-capita income: $34k

So SF has worse property crime even though it is on-par or poorer than NYC and Palo Alto.

[Retric]

That site is wildly inaccurate it lists 1.2% of homes in San Francisco as under 58k. https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/san-francisco/real-esta...

But, if you’re confusing the point, clearly median income isn’t the only factor. Palo Alto is 2,712.65/sq mi where San Francisco is 18,790.74/sq mi. It’s over the hump where you don’t get poor people begging etc. Similarly, manhattan effectively segregates the rich an poor in a way that San Francisco doesn’t, but wealth very much is a factor when comparing San Francisco to similar areas.

[pqoek]

I think you mean disparity