> to keep homeless individuals from camping inside the store
Why wasn't that a problem for the previous 20 years of Starbucks existence?
Managers of NYC restaurants (including Starbucks) are usually quite familiar with specific local individuals that may not be welcome in their establishment, and have a variety of techniques for managing occupancy.
The social and political environment for the unhoused, as well as the substance abuse environment, has shifted during those 20 years. Many homeless people today are exactly where they want to be. They don't want to come up with rent every month, please a boss every day. They want to do street drugs without a care in the world. Sometimes it's an easier way to avoid confronting mental issues.
20 years ago if you asked an unhoused person to leave a Starbucks, the fear of police, the general shame, etc. soft social pressure might have worked. Today's street residents might see the antagonism as entertainment, their position in the world as entitled, and sleeping in the police lockup as a clever free hotel hack. It's the same sense of entitlement that has them break someone's car window for something they can sell for $10 or walk out of a store with an arm full of merchandise.
In a way, the breach of social contract has become an entertainment aspect, if not a Robinhood-esque anti-society self-justification. The consequences of "being a constructive member of society" are too high for many, and the consequences of street life are ones you can mentally harden yourself against.
The way you view homeless people is completely dehumanizing and embarrassingly inaccurate. I would encourage you to get off your high horse and acquire an ounce of perspective.
Speculation here, but there seems to have been an overall increase in homelessness and less willingness by some communities to police the problem.
Anecdotally, when I moved about 10 years ago, it was uncommon to see homeless downtown. Then there was a transition period where they were allowed downtown in the evening but the police would clear them out in the early morning. Now, you can find them there at all times of the day.
Look up “Ferguson effect”. Regardless of police budgets, policing in the USA has taken a step back in the last decade and reduced enforcement.
The result can be seen everywhere - more car crashes and deaths, speeding, homicides, car theft, and also in smaller ways like subway turnstile jumping and loitering.
I’m not sure of the meta factors have driven it recently, but at least in some large US metro areas, it became enough of a problem that some coffee chains have recently switched from having in-store seating and restrooms to pick-up only without those amenities.
You imply it wasn't a problem, it was. It always has been. The tools to deal with them have been reduced, because people unrelated to the problem are applying various types of pressure to allow homeless people to exist where they want, as long as those homeless people don't exist where the unrelated complainers are!
Yet Starbucks managed to have chairs, tables and third-place customers for the last 20 years.
The Harvard Business School case study will be interesting: "How a $35 billion dollar company was defeated by random homeless people and their supporters.
> Why wasn't that a problem for the previous 20 years of Starbucks existence?
Hostile architecture in public spaces outside of private businesses has increased, si private businesses are forced to become more hostile to maintain the same degree of success in the “we don’t want you here” wars.
The article refers to Starbucks in Toronto, where I am. How they handled panhandlers in the past was via a handshake agreement where they could come in and get a cup of water or small coffee free of charge and rest on one of the seats in the corner of the store.
At a busy intersection location where I would go to write daily, I'd see people following those rules and not bothering anyone. The store would be full of regular customers too.
After Covid, everything changed, and not just the decor. Wait times for orders increased massively, to the point where I'm wondering if staff are instructed to service the drive-thru people and Doordashers first. The customer experience now is woeful, and I haven't been back in months.
I don’t deny that, I’m just clarifying the OP that relates the issue we’re seeing “now” to the invention of fentanyl. It’s more complicated than the presence of the drug, like you said it relates to the changes in usage, irrespective of when the drug was invented.
No idea, I could only speculate. Shifts in: culture, consumer behavior, homeless population volume or their demeanor, tightening retail profit margins, increasing costs of labor and operating costs would all be likely be contributing factors.
Who said it wasn’t? The article is about one Starbucks in Toronto. We don’t know how many Starbucks stores closed, moved, changed their hours, or rearranged their furniture, or had managers willing to tell homeless to move on.
From a low it reached in about the middle of the 20 year period, back to a level it was close to the beginning of that period. (In absolute numbers, not in rate.)
In some countries and eras of human civilization, urban residents might be entertained by the concept of a company with $30 billion in annual revenue being unable to influence any local influencers of order and civilized behavior, to protect and grow their revenue stream.
Why wasn't that a problem for the previous 20 years of Starbucks existence?
Managers of NYC restaurants (including Starbucks) are usually quite familiar with specific local individuals that may not be welcome in their establishment, and have a variety of techniques for managing occupancy.