[shuckles]

SFPD’s staffing levels are also at historic lows (and much lower than UN averages) while the work required to investigate and prosecute crimes has increased due to the professionalization of policing (a lot more TPS reports but also valuable constraints on autonomy). Perceived aggregate activity being down isn’t particularly surprising.

The U-Haul stunt was largely just a stunt. It was later revealed the DA’s office just didn’t get their paperwork right to organize evidence transport.

[chrsjxn]

I feel like that just makes it worse (though I didn't know about the DA's office messing up the paperwork).

Let's assume that understaffing and additional work required to close cases are the main causes for the low clearance rates. Monitoring a legal protest in case crimes are committed seems profoundly wasteful, compared to working to resolve crimes that actually happened.

I don't envy SFPD. Trying to reduce crime in SF seems like a huge challenge that they are poorly equipped to solve, for many reasons. But the original comment in this thread is trying to justify surveillance here as preventing possible property crimes, and that just makes no sense to me.