Obviously this is McDonalds’ fault.
Since the SF city government has done such a thorough job of eliminating “drug sales, fights, assaults and auto burglaries” on public streets, sidewalks and in parks, all the miscreants have moved to McDonalds’ property, where the cops are helpless to do anything.
McDonald’s to San Francisco: No, you.
I can understand the city’s frustration, it certainly seems like there’s an unusual amount of crime at that location. But it’s the city’s job to protect McDonalds and its customers, not the other way around. I think what San Francisco meant to say is “please work with us to help figure out why this is happening and stop it.”
Wow, 1100 calls in about 1100 days is a lot. I wonder how they expect Mickey D’s to address this? Maybe they could hire private cops and open a maximum-security Ronald McDonald House. If it’s profitable, franchise it around the world!
What no Jack In The Box nearby so they all decided on McD’s?
I understand what you are saying, but there is much less bad behavior on the corner right across the street, in front of Whole Foods. WF has a security guard that seems to do a pretty good job keeping things pretty mellow outside at the picnic tables. It seems obvious that McDonalds needs to do the same and pay for security. It’s not great that security is necessary, but it’s part of the cost of doing business at the worst part of the Park.
I go out of my way to avoid walking in front of this McDonalds - it just seems to attract the worst.
Funny, I hear that other cities have these people called “police” whose job it is (theoretically) to stop stuff like this. Maybe SF could take some of the tourist money that it’s getting from people coming to the Haight and address the effects of druggies coming to a druggie mecca.
McD should just sue SF for knowingly and intentionally failing to maintain a safe environment in which to do business. SF has made it clear they know there is a problem with crime and have decided to blame the resident for SF’s policing failure instead of stepping up police presence.
There’s a catch-22 here, though. Too much police presence will stymie the “authentic” tourist experience of someone waiving some bud right in your face the second you enter the area*.
(*This actually happened to me, not sure if a regular feature of a visit to Haight-Ashbury, of if I really, really do not look like a cop.)
Have you considered that the kind of people who buy crack on the street are simply more likely to be on a “McDonald’s” budget than a “Whole Foods” budget?
The Haight is a pretty trendy neighborhood these days. It’s no surprise that the “less desirable” residents might congregate around one of the few businesses where a poor person can still afford a bite to eat.
Sigh… if you haven’t been there (and those who have know this), that McD’s has ALWAYS been an attractive spot for vagrants, and general nastiness, especially the adjacent parking lot where people camp out. Even ONE security guard on duty 24/7 could maybe help things a bit but really the city and biz need to work together on this one, or hey, get rid of McD’s on the grounds of its A WRETCHED UNKEMPT PLACE THAT MAKES THE END OF HAIGHT LOOK LIKE A SLUM.
Liked. All I have to say is “McDuty”.
I don’t see it as obvious; I see this as just another “criminalizing being poor”. Whole Foods customers can afford to pay more so that Whole Foods can absorb the cost of security. Just because McD’s attracts less well off clientele (who can’t afford to buy their food or drugs in safer places) doesn’t mean it’s McD’s fault when customers misbehave. I don’t blame the liquor store on my corner for the shady people that hang around their store either; It’s not a great area, but that’s not their fault.
Similar situation happened in L.A. Just because McDonalds has deep pockets doesn’t make it right, because if cities are allowed do this to McD’s, they can do it to anyone, who might not have deep pockets.
You don’t see aaaaaany other sociological elements at play between Whole Foods and McDonalds?
Cities also routinely shut down bars and clubs, for example, that are an overwhelming source of police calls and activities for failure to “police” their own businesses. Cops around here got better things to do than go to MickieD’s every day.
It’s not only because of Whole Foods now. The McDonalds corner has been terrible for as long as I can remember while the opposite side of the street has been neutral. It was true as a Cala Foods and even when it was nothing but a shuttered store and a parking lot for years.
Do you shop in this neighborhood? McDonalds in SF is actually quite expensive. Even the value menu has creeped upward significantly. I’m always shocked at how cheap it is whenever I visit a McDonalds out of town.
Additionally, while Whole Foods can be quite expensive, they have legitimately good prices if you are value conscious and stick to mainly staples.
That’s as may be, but if I’m writing someone to request help, “You are legally on the hook” is not often the first phrase that comes to mind.
The fact remains that a homeless person or crack cocaine addict is far more likely to buy lunch at McDonald’s than Whole Foods. Part of that may be that poor people have different cultural experience in buying, preparing and eating meals, but it’s also because McDonalds remains one of the cheapest options for food even with higher prices than franchises in other parts of the country.
Roll out that requirement to businesses in general - make them legally responsible for what happens adjacent to their property, outside their doors - and you’ve created a great reason for them to just pull out of “high crime” areas, period.
I don’t doubt that those pullouts would be followed immediately by the usual politicians’ lamentations about the lack of services and jobs for the community’s residents…