Fact check: Safeway made the only rational decision in chosing to close the San Francisco location. But local activists who felt Safeway had an obligation to let theives to continue to steal from it unabated were butthurt over the decision.

1. Summary of the results

The closure of Safeway's Fillmore District location has been confirmed and is scheduled for February 7, 2025 ^[1]. The decision was indeed driven by significant theft issues, with security guards reporting daily losses of around $7,000 ^[2] and 60-100 theft incidents per shift ^[3]. The company cited "ongoing concerns about associate and customer safety, as well as persistent issues with theft" as primary reasons for the closure ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement omits several crucial pieces of context:

• Broader Economic Trend: This closure is part of a larger retail exodus in San Francisco, with nearly 40 retail stores closing in Union Square since 2020 ^[5] and half of downtown stores shutting down since 2019 ^[6].
• Community Impact: The closure significantly affects vulnerable populations:
• Seniors and disabled residents who relied on this location ^[7]
• Low-income Black and Asian communities ^[8]
• The store has served the community for 40 years ^[4]
• Future Plans: The property will be sold to Align Real Estate for mixed-use development, while Safeway will continue operating 15 other locations in San Francisco ^[1]. Supervisor Dean Preston's office is working to potentially include a grocery store in the future development ^[8].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement presents several biased perspectives:

• Oversimplification: While theft is a documented problem, characterizing it as the "only rational decision" ignores the complex factors affecting retail in San Francisco, including reduced foot traffic, population decline, and pandemic-related shifts ^{[5] [6]}.
• Mischaracterization of Opposition: The statement dismissively describes critics as "butthurt" activists, when in reality:
• The NAACP President Rev. Amos Brown has raised legitimate concerns about systemic racism and food desert creation ^[1]
• Community members, including seniors and disabled individuals, have expressed practical concerns about access to groceries ^[8]
• Local officials are actively seeking solutions, such as including a grocery store in future development plans ^[8]

The statement's inflammatory language obscures the legitimate community concerns and broader economic context surrounding this closure.