Cashless Bail
In recent years, cashless bail policies—also known as bail reform—have been implemented in several U.S. states and cities to address inequities in the criminal justice system. These reforms allow many defendants accused of misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies to be released pretrial without posting cash bail, relying instead on risk assessments, electronic monitoring, or other conditions. Proponents argue that cashless bail reduces unnecessary incarceration for low-income individuals, while critics contend it contributes to rising crime rates, particularly retail theft. As debates intensify, some jurisdictions are considering or enacting rollbacks, effectively “removing” cashless bail by reinstating cash requirements or expanding judges’ discretion to detain suspects. This shift could have significant implications for the retail real estate sector, which has been battered by perceptions of increased shoplifting and organized retail crime (ORC). Drawing on crime data, industry reports, and expert analyses, this article explores how stricter bail laws might alleviate pressures on retailers and, by extension, bolster commercial properties.
The Link Between Cashless Bail and Retail Theft: A Contentious Debate
Cashless bail reforms, such as New York’s 2019 law that eliminated cash bail for most misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies, aimed to prevent wealth-based detention. However, critics link these policies to a “revolving door” justice system, where repeat offenders are released quickly and continue committing crimes. In New York City, just 327 individuals—many treating shoplifting as a profession—were responsible for over 6,000 arrests and a third of all retail crime incidents in 2022.
Shoplifting complaints nearly doubled since the reform’s passage, becoming a key driver of the city’s overall crime rate.
Nationwide, retail theft has surged in some areas, with organized groups targeting stores for high-value items to resell online. The National Retail Federation estimates annual losses from shrink (including theft, employee fraud, and errors) at $94 billion, though external theft accounts for only a portion.
In California, Proposition 47 (2014), which reclassified thefts under $950 as misdemeanors often ineligible for bail, has been blamed for emboldening thieves, leading to “smash-and-grab” incidents and contributing to a modest rise in property crime.
Retailers like Walgreens and Target have cited theft as a reason for store closures, though some executives later admitted overhyping the issue.
However, comprehensive studies challenge the narrative that bail reform directly causes crime spikes. A Brennan Center analysis of 33 cities found no significant impact on crime rates post-reform, attributing rises to factors like the COVID-19 pandemic rather than policy changes.
Similarly, New York’s bail reform showed negligible effects on crime increases, with rearrest rates remaining stable.
Current Pressures on Retail Real Estate from Theft Trends
Rising retail theft, whether exacerbated by bail policies or not, has tangible effects on commercial real estate. High-theft areas see increased vacancies as chains close underperforming stores, reducing foot traffic and property values. In San Francisco, often cited as a theft epicenter, Walgreens closed multiple locations amid locked-up merchandise and security costs, contributing to urban retail blight.
New York Mayor Eric Adams has warned that repeated thefts are forcing chain stores to shutter, undermining the economy and leaving shopping centers with empty storefronts.
This dynamic erodes investor confidence, leading to higher cap rates and lower rents in affected markets. Commercial real estate firms report that persistent crime perceptions deter new tenants, particularly in urban cores, exacerbating post-pandemic recovery challenges. In cities like Chicago and Los Angeles, where bail reforms have faced scrutiny, retail plazas struggle with occupancy rates below 80%, as brands opt for suburban or online-only models.
Potential Benefits of Removing Cashless Bail
Reverting to stricter bail laws—by repealing reforms or adding more bail-eligible offenses—could deter retail theft by increasing pretrial detention for repeat offenders, potentially stabilizing the sector. In states like Florida, Louisiana, and North Carolina, new laws imposing harsher penalties for ORC (e.g., up to seven years for group thefts) aim to target organizers, reducing incidents and reassuring retailers.
California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a 2024 package cracking down on retail crime, including stricter enforcement and penalties, which could stem losses and prevent closures.
For real estate, lower theft could attract investment, boost occupancy, and revive shopping districts. New York’s 2020 and 2022 amendments, expanding bail for certain thefts, marginally reduced shoplifting recidivism, though impacts were limited.
Experts argue that swift apprehension and consequences—enabled by bail requirements—deter crime more effectively than lenient releases.
Challenges and Counterarguments
Despite potential upsides, evidence suggests stricter bail may not significantly reduce crime. Studies show detention increases recidivism by 6-9%, as it disrupts lives without addressing root causes like poverty or addiction.
Racial disparities persist, with Black and Latino defendants facing higher bail, exacerbating inequities without safety gains.
Critics warn that punitive shifts could strain jails and overlook alternatives like pretrial services.
Moreover, theft data is unreliable—underreported or conflated with other shrink factors—making causal links to bail policies tenuous.
In 24 cities analyzed by the Council on Criminal Justice, shoplifting declined in 17 from 2019-2023, challenging the “epidemic” narrative.
A Final Word: A Balanced Approach for Sustainable Recovery
Removing cashless bail could provide short-term relief for the retail real estate sector by curbing perceived theft threats and encouraging tenant retention. However, data-driven policies—combining enforcement with community support, like better pretrial services and consumer protections against online resale—offer a more holistic path to safety and economic vitality. As states like California and New York refine their approaches, stakeholders must prioritize evidence over rhetoric to foster resilient retail landscapes
