Having been denied a temporary restraining order to halt construction, the neighborhood group fighting to block the opening of a temporary Navigation Center upon the Port’s parking lot parcel known as Seawall Lot 330, adjacent to the Watermark and across from Piers 30-32, has just filed a new legal motion and request for a superior court order to set aside the City’s approval of the project.

A central argument of the opposition group remains the perceived impact the center will have on local crime rates.

Speaking of which, according to data gathered by San Francisco’s Police Department, which is slated to be presented to the Navigation Center’s Advisory Group and community next week, the crime rate in the “safety area” around the Embarcadero Navigation Center site has actually been on the decline, particularly since the center, which is currently on track for a December opening, broke ground in July.

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Notcom

    “Larceny Theft…3927”

    So well over 100 incidents/day of DIY Wealth Redistribution in this supposedly safe burgh? Hope those who kept a tight grip on their belongings while passing thru The Town don’t develop finger fatigue once they reach The City, it could prove costly.

    • Posted by BigTPopo

      An absolute needless jab at Oakland.

      • Posted by Notcom

        Actually a (much needed?) jab at those who blithely claim Oakland is unsafe and SF is crime-free…no ??

  2. Posted by jimbo

    its clear that area was bad before, and not surprising its getting better with more people aorund. Embarcero has been a homeless bastion for some time. the parks across for the ferry building in particular are often filled with homeless and needles, and they had to shut down the fountain years ago because of homeless defecating in it. this navigation center is clearly good for the neighborhood and the homeless. although probably not for the property values of Watermark owners, who can view the center from their pool deck

    • Posted by questioning

      Why are more people around in 2019 vs 2018? And wouldn’t more people result in more chance of larceny?

  3. Posted by Wai Yip Tung

    “perceived impact” on local crime rates? It seems we have a really low bar of file legal restraint. Should burden of proof be on the people who file?

  4. Posted by folderpete

    The graph shows “90” (in the dip) but I count 102 – about the same as the previous month. Should I trust that figure? Should I trust this report? Or Breed’s Police Dept in general?

    Also, I didn’t see any reference to Oakland – was that edited out?

    • Posted by questioning

      I agree. I’m also skeptical

      “The Town” in the previous comment is in reference to Oakland

  5. Posted by sf

    I LOL knowing these are the same people who blocked the arena proposal at the pier across the street.

    • Posted by SFRealist

      This is the most hilarious part of the story. Tough to have too much sympathy!

    • Posted by JWS

      It’s hilarious also because the arena proposal would have also included the parking lot being redeveloped. Where the navigation center is now would have been residential, and the empty lot would have been a luxury hotel.

    • Posted by jimbo

      yes, short sighted, and that was a much better place for the arena because transit is so much better there, and would have been an iconic location

  6. Posted by Mari Eliza

    If this neighborhood is anything like ours in the Mission, the police are not reporting all of the incidents. That data may not be accurate when reports are no filed.

    • Posted by Jackson

      Exactly. I think City residents are experiencing a “what’s the use” feeling about reporting crime knowing the District Attorney doesn’t bother addressing certain crimes due to dismissal by the Courts. This attitude has trickled down to the Police who think “why bother?” Only during elections do politicians become accountable. With thirty years in San Francisco, I no longer feel safe on our streets because out of nowhere you’re a target.

      The Navigation Center is a done deal, recording accurate crime statistics is not.

      • Posted by Anonymous

        Your feelings of not feeling safe are much more of an issue of your personal perception than of any actual increase in crime. Certain areas may have varying degrees of increase and decrease in certain types of crimes, but the city overall is objectively safer today than in was in the 80s and early 90s.

        • Posted by ijustworkhere

          I noticed Anon did a little switch from “crime” to “safety”. Although there is less violent crime in the city than in the 90s, mirroring the decline in violent crime across the country, there is an objective increase in the level of non-violent crime. Indeed, San Francisco has the highest rates of property crime in the nation, 48K incidents of property crime per year, and that rate is increasing. That’s one property crime for every 18 people per year, or 5555 incidents per 100K. By contrast, NY has 122K incidents for 10x our population, or 1 for every 180 people. We have an order of magnitude higher property crime than other major metro areas in the U.S. That’s an astonishing failure. This is UCR data, so just the crimes reported. Many people don’t even bother reporting these crimes, such as car breakins and vandalism, because they have gotten so used to them and have no hope of things getting better.

          Contrasting with 1995, which is the earliest UCR data we have available, we had a property crime rate of 4,900 per 100,000. So objectively we have a higher rate of property crime today than we did in 1995.

          Now, let’s move onto homelessness. In 1995, we had 2,600 homeless people. Now, it’s 7,500.

          Now it’s fantastic that the city went from 95 homicides in 1995 to 68 in 2018. That’s awesome, but homicide rates fell even faster in the state as a whole as well as in the entire nation. SF is unique in having total crime incidents of violent + property that remain at 1995 levels even today.

          • Posted by Anonymous

            I didn’t switch anything. You are extremely confused and are conflating commentary from multiple people and attributing it to one person. And then you proceeded to construct a “counter argument” to a point I never made in the first place, which is extremely dishonest, at best.

    • Posted by BTinSF

      I see shoplifting in progress every time I enter my local Walgreen’s. The store staff ignores it and never even bother’s to call the police. I assume that is because stealing less than $900 worth of anything is now a misdemeanor and the cops wouldn’t do anything nor would any other part of the justice system.

      • Posted by ExSFLandlord

        We call it “redistribution of wealth,” this is what the voters in CA approved. I’m not sure why anyone in CA pays for anything any more.

    • Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

      I have to agree with Mari Eliza. In The ‘loin, Glide Memorial Church famously conducts ersatz empathy tours for prosecutors and police officers which are ostensibly designed to shift the mindset of folks who work in law enforcement but in practice has to play out in fewer citations being written to homeless people and fewer drug addicts being arrested for addiction-driven crimes. Ordinary people know that the police have been coopted, so they can’t trust stats like the ones described in this post.

  7. Posted by questioning

    Fake News. The neighborhood did not “block” the arena proposal – They had yet to vote on it. An arena on Piers 30-32 would have also required approvals from agencies like the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, State Lands Commission, and Army Corps of Engineers, not to mention the cost to fix the piers – upwards of $200M

    • Posted by curmudgeon

      That is correct; it was the threat of regulatory failure that ACTUALLY doomed the arena, along with the probable price of rebuilding the pier.

      • Posted by jimbo

        maybe that is what ultimatelY KILLED it, but there was also very signifciant neighborhood opposition due to traffic concerns

    • Posted by Anonymous

      Nothing like hurling Trumpian nonsense around to try and make a point, and end up doing it really badly. Doesn’t exactly endear people to your position or lend you any credibility.

      • Posted by questioning

        I got you to reply, didn’t I?

        And everything I said was accurate. Don’t be so salty.

    • Posted by cmon

      The Warriors/ Chase would have paid all the costs of the development, just as they did at the current location. What difference does it make how much it would have cost?

  8. Posted by ExSFLandlord

    So adding additional officers and beat cops to the area around this crime magnet is working. Who knew?

    This isn’t rocket science, it’s better policy. Let’s see how long the numbers remain down. I’d say 6 months from now the additional cops suddenly disappear from the scene and crime stats rise.

    Waiting to see but not holding my breath…

  9. Posted by SFrealist

    Won’t the key question be whether crime goes up or down after the center opens? (If it hasn’t opened yet, it can’t effect the crime numbers, right?)

  10. Posted by SFian

    Waterfront homeless shelter, only in SF. Oy Vey.

  11. Posted by Willie Fistergash

    People, people. This city is run for the benefit of belligerent street derelicts, not the folks who pay the bills. Don’t you know that by now?

  12. Posted by 94oh8oh

    I’ve lived on this cul de sac for the past 12 years and now enjoy my neighborhood strolls tip-toeing through the shards of broken car glass, needles, and feces whilst griping my pepper spray and admiring the changing atmosphere as I check over my shoulder every other step. I was always skeptical of all the previous name changes from South Beach, to Rincon Hill, to East cut, but “Safety Area” has a reassuring ring to it. I feel safer already.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Articles