[HN Gopher] We urgently need to discuss Westfield: Emails on saf...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       We urgently need to discuss Westfield: Emails on safety problems at
       downtown SF
        
       Author : g42gregory
       Score  : 39 points
       Date   : 2023-06-15 18:20 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.sfchronicle.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.sfchronicle.com)
        
       | gingerrr wrote:
       | edit: wow I can't read, apparently. or scrolled too aggressively
       | when reading, either way they absolutely mentioned it.
       | 
       | --
       | 
       | Seems like journalistic malpractice that all these recent pieces
       | trumpeting the SF downtown location closing don't _also_ mention
       | that Westfield announced a year and 2 months ago they 're selling
       | _their entire US mall portfolio by 2024 to focus on Europe_.
       | 
       | https://smmirror.com/2022/04/french-based-owners-of-westfiel...
        
         | evanelias wrote:
         | The middle of the article does directly mention this already.
         | 
         | It says "Westfield's parent company said last year that it
         | planned to sell all of its U.S. malls by 2024 to focus on its
         | operations in Europe." It also links to a prior San Francisco
         | Chronicle article about this.
        
           | gingerrr wrote:
           | fundamental reading comprehension failure on my part, thanks
           | for the correction.
        
         | cscurmudgeon wrote:
         | Selling (elsewhere) vs abandoning to lender (SF).
         | 
         | There is a huge difference between the two.
        
           | gingerrr wrote:
           | To whom? Yes to Westfield's bottom line, but both you and
           | another commenter have replied this as if it has self-evident
           | corollaries.
           | 
           | Why is the difference meaningful to anyone who isn't the
           | corporation already planning on exiting the market? Would be
           | a helpful exposition to better understand what you're both
           | trying to indicate with pointing out that 2 different things
           | are different.
           | 
           | edit: I'm asking bc the article doesn't really explain that
           | either and I'm not sure why this means anything beyond
           | Westfield couldn't find a buyer at the price they wanted, or
           | thought this was the simplest/fastest way to divest
        
             | andromeduck wrote:
             | It wouldn't matter if the mall still had some anchor
             | tennants and traffic was good but neither is the case.
        
             | inimino wrote:
             | selling: "we are not the right owner for this asset"
             | 
             | foreclosure: "the current owner, the world's expert on
             | making this location profitable, concluded it can't be
             | done"
             | 
             | You can argue that it's reductive, obviously that's true
             | but this is the "self-evident" optics people are responding
             | to. (Not the GP but HTH.)
        
         | throwawaywu wrote:
         | Selling an asset is much different than shutting down what is a
         | now a liability.
        
           | gingerrr wrote:
           | Where did you read the mall is closing? The final paragraph
           | in the linked article indicates things are staying open,
           | Westfield isn't shutting anything down, just deciding to back
           | out of repaying the remainder of their loan.
           | 
           | It's a functional foreclosure, which divests them of their
           | interest much like selling an asset would - do you just mean
           | it's "much different" because of the amount of money they
           | make/lose?
           | 
           | Trying to understand the distinction you're making as it
           | relates to this article and their preexisting plans to exit
           | the market.
        
             | andromeduck wrote:
             | They've lost all their major tennants and defaulting on
             | their loans because of public & employee safety made the
             | business unviable, what makes you think they'll stay open
             | even if they weren't leaving?
             | 
             | The general area has also seen a huge wave of closures
             | including pretty much every anchor tennant with IKEA being
             | the only major business to buck the trend so far.
             | 
             | This isn't a just a "business is going okay but we over
             | leveraged" situation.
        
       | andromeduck wrote:
       | Progs: People should feel safe where they work. Workplaces should
       | be free from violence & Harassment. Businesses that can't
       | guarantee employee safety should be shut down.
       | 
       | Businesses: Our workers are being harassed daily, several have
       | been held at knifepoint. Please help.
       | 
       | Progs: That's just an isolated incident. Crime is down.
       | 
       | Businesses: People don't feel safe and there doesn't seem to be
       | anything we can do about it so we're shutting down.
       | 
       | Progs: Wow I guess you're just not really committed to this city
       | SMH.
        
         | q1w2 wrote:
         | I agree, but safety should ideally be the responsibility of
         | local government.
         | 
         | If the city cannot provide basic safety for its citizens, then
         | corporations WILL leave, and salaried residents will follow
         | them.
        
       | ilaksh wrote:
       | I'm sure I don't actually understand the details but the way it's
       | been presented before is that, for whatever reasons, criminals
       | and those with severe mental issues are now not kept in jail or
       | institutions but rather left to roam the streets. The mental
       | illness policy has been around for a long time but the idea not
       | to jail criminals is a bit newer.
       | 
       | I think that not jailing criminals is related to bail bond system
       | reform or something. Not an expert but I am guessing that they
       | need a more realistic policy that does not automatically free
       | habitual offenders. They probably need more jails and a much more
       | efficient legal system. And a new mental health policy and
       | massive increase in funding for institutions. As well as a much
       | more effective benefits system to prevent homelessness. And
       | probably much less tolerance for drug sales etc. Also the general
       | economic decline needs to be righted.
       | 
       | I guess considering the severity of all of those problems and the
       | concentration in that area, it's remarkable that businesses can
       | operate at all.
        
         | andromeduck wrote:
         | It's because the far left that dominate all levels of SF/Cali
         | politics, including many senators, city supervisors, city
         | attorneys, police commissioner, judges and non profits - don't
         | believe in "carceeal justice" and so refuse to do anything
         | about it.
         | 
         | A common belief is that prison is criminogenic, because people
         | who spend more time in prison tend to reoffend more often but
         | this largely gets the causality backwards. This causes them to
         | ignore/deny the pareto distribution of crime that underlies
         | most criminal justice systems so we have a fairly sizable
         | population of serial violence reoffenders that are just caught
         | and released on a weekly/monthly basis until someone dies.
        
       | ed wrote:
       | https://web.archive.org/web/20230615202717/https://www.sfchr...
        
       | onetokeoverthe wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-06-15 23:03 UTC)