[awal2]

This is a popular take, but (with respect) I don't think a more aggressive DA is the answer for the following reasons:

A. The problem is too big to just arrest and charge everybody. There aren't enough police to track all the petty crime even if you had a DA with an appetite to charge them.

B. Even if you start heavily prosecuting the few people you do have the resources to bring in, this isn't enough of a deterrent to stop other people who are committing small time property crime. People aren't doing it simply because they can get away with it, they're doing it out of desperation.

In my opinion (feel free to disagree) the problem won't go away until there is real upward mobility for the lowest end of the economic spectrum so that people have something better to do than break into people's houses, cars and garages. There's a perverse dynamic where if you have zero money it's probably easier to be in the city of Seattle than pretty much anywhere else nearby (more shelters, more services and more other people already living in tents and vans). At the same time, the city is incredibly expensive, and there aren't a lot of entry-level jobs for people trying to get out of poverty, so making the jump from zero to stable seems like it must be really really hard here. So there's a huge wealth/income gap without any real bridge to get across it which leads to a lot of desperation, and (I think) that has more to do with anything than whatever soft policies in the DA's office.