YIMBY: The Normalization of Crime in Washington, D.C.

National attention has lately been drawn to my very block of residence in Columbia Heights, D.C. Unfortunately, this attention has been largely, er, unfavorable.

A popular X account, “End Wokeness,” (which seeks to do exactly what it proclaims), posted a video regarding crime on my block.

The video showcases liberal twentysomethings voicing sympathy for the thieves who have looted the local CVS to oblivion (we’re talking shelves completely emptied of all products). Amid a chorus of such squishy defenses — “maybe they just couldn’t afford things they really needed,” came the inevitable: My block’s CVS is officially closing next month.

In another case of brazen lawlessness, flyers have been posted on neighboring, vacant storefronts calling shoplifters to “unite.” “Take everything that’s not nailed down! Bust windows.”

Regarding the rise in shoplifting, local shopper Willie Mae told the local news station, “I think it’s a bunch of crap, that’s what I think. You know, I see people come in this Safeway right here and I see them take stuff and steal. You know, I don’t say anything, but you know the guard is right there. He sees it too and he don’t do anything.”

I can hear your question already, dear Reader: “Why on earth would you live there?!”

Ah, I appreciate your concern, but as a poor, struggling writer, I simply had to find a dwelling place with affordable rent. (The housemates aren’t too bad, either.)

So, what is the city doing to address the surge in retail theft?

Next to nothing. Retailers are left to take matters into their own hands by hiring private security, but due to D.C. law, such private security is often ineffectual.

Retailers, like the Target on my block, can hire security officers or special police officers to help secure their premises. Both must be licensed through the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, a process that requires 40 hours of classroom training, and for special police officers, shooting-range qualification. Besides that, the requirements to become a security officer or a special police officer are quite rudimentary. One “must have reached the age of 21-years old, be a citizen of the United States, and be of good moral character.” Additionally, an officer:

Shall be approved for appointment by the Chief of Police, shall possess a high school diploma or a general equivalency diploma, or one year of experience as a special police officer in the District of Columbia, shall be able to read, write, and speak the English language, and shall be certified by a licensed physician as physically and psychologically fit to perform the duties of a special police officer.

According to the Metropolitan Police Department of Washington, D.C., the main difference between security officers and special police officers is that the former have almost no physical authority to guard the property they are hired to secure.

Security Officers have no arrest authority. Only commissioned Special Police Officers have that authority in the District’s private security industry.

Security Officers are prohibited from carrying any weapons such as firearms, handcuffs and self-defense spray; they are only permitted to carry a wooden baton as outlined by DC Municipal Regulations (DCMR Title 17, Chapter 21, Section 2120.1g).

So, a 21-year-old, who goes through a 40-hour class, armed with a wooden baton and a security vest, is supposed to stop a band of thieves? According to the District of Columbia: Yup.

In reality, security officers act more like hall monitors — they can deter generally law-abiding citizens from acting out, and they can swiftly call the principal’s office if something goes awry. But against hardened criminals or large numbers of petty thieves, they are no match.

While special police officers can carry a firearm and possess arrest authority within the bounds of the property they were contracted to protect, there is still little incentive for them to physically deter thieves — particularly if the thieves are minors. (Hell hath no fury like an ACLU-funded lawyer prosecuting an officer for physically responding to a minor in the act of a crime.)

So, what are retailers like Target to do when faced with rampant crime and unresponsive city leadership? My neighborhood Target is trying out a new method to curb theft: Minors are prohibited from entering the store if unaccompanied by an adult. While the enforcement of this new policy is by no means airtight, it is an attempt to keep groups of juveniles from embarking on an after-school grab-and-go (a routine occurence in my neighborhood).

If the city does not do enough to apprehend thieves, the city can sue the retailer for cultivating a space of “various, and frequent, criminal activity,” i.e. for being a “public nuisance.” (O. H. Skinner over at Alliance for Consumers brought this incredible phenomenon to my attention.) For retailers, rampant crime in their stores is really a lose-lose situation — apart from the loss in profit caused by stolen goods (and the deterrence that crime causes for paying customers to shop at that location), they can also be slammed with public-funded lawsuits.

For cities that say “Yes in my backyard” to crime, retail deserts are sure to follow.