[C.]

This reminds me of the discussion about food deserts.

A regional supermarket chain or intendent grocery will close a store citing low profit margins in a poor or minority neighborhood leaving little options nearby for the residents. The local politicians scream out that they are abandoning the community, and they say they should be able to make enough money to stay open.

The problem is that's not how it works. A business owner can decide weather to operate or discontinue a shop. As long as they didn't accept any economic development incentives for opening or in bankruptcy proceeding, the government doesn't get to dictate that a private business owner must operate their business, especially if it's operating at a loss.

This is why I believe a little gentrification can be a good thing. There needs to be a critical mass of shoppers, enough to make it lucrative enough for a supermarket to stay in the neighborhood.

I don't know the specifics about San Francisco, but at the end of the day I'm guessing it was simply a corporate bottom-line decision that the stores where not generating enough profit and there are other stores nearby that would capture the market share. They're just using theft as a scapegoat. These were already pre-planned decisions, but so what?