“Capital goes where it is welcome and stays where it is well treated.”
— Walter Wriston
I would add something to Wriston’s observation: capital also tends to stay where people feel safe.
That is something every elected official, city manager, county administrator, and public-safety executive should understand.
We tend to talk about public safety in terms of what it costs. Police officers cost money. Firefighters cost money. EMS costs money. Dispatchers cost money. Equipment, training, facilities, vehicles, communications systems, and technology all cost money. When municipal budgets become tight, public safety can easily become another expense competing with parks, roads, libraries, economic development, and other community priorities.
I believe that is the wrong way to look at it.
Public safety is economic infrastructure.
We understand that roads are economic infrastructure because businesses need roads to move employees, customers, products and supplies. We understand that water and sewer systems are economic infrastructure because businesses cannot operate without them. We understand that reliable electricity and communications are economic infrastructure because modern commerce depends upon them. Public safety belongs in that same conversation because businesses and communities cannot function effectively without a reasonable expectation that people, property, and commerce will be protected and that help will arrive when something goes wrong.
A community cannot sustain a healthy economy if people are afraid to go to work, customers are reluctant to shop, businesses have to spend extraordinary amounts of money protecting their employees and property, insurance costs become prohibitive, or companies begin deciding that another community provides a better environment in which to operate.
The interesting thing about public safety is that much of its economic value is invisible. When a police officer prevents a robbery, there is no check handed to the city showing the value of the robbery that didn’t occur. When firefighters arrive quickly enough to contain a commercial building fire before the entire structure is destroyed, there is no receipt showing the value of the property and business operation that was preserved. When an EMS crew gets a person to definitive medical care quickly enough to prevent a catastrophic outcome, there is no invoice showing the future economic productivity that may have been preserved.
When public safety works well, much of what it accomplishes is something that doesn’t happen.
That makes prevention difficult to measure politically because people can see what government spends, but they cannot easily see the losses that never occurred.
Consider traffic crashes. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that motor-vehicle crashes cost American society approximately $340 billion in 2019, including medical expenses, lost productivity, property damage, emergency services, congestion, and other costs. Those costs represented approximately 1.6% of U.S. gross domestic product that year. Public-safety agencies are only one part of the effort to reduce those losses, but police, fire and EMS personnel are directly involved whenever crashes occur, and their ability to respond effectively can influence the severity of the consequences.
The same principle applies to fire protection. The U.S. Fire Administration recognizes that calculating fire loss should include consideration of property saved through fire-department intervention, as well as the indirect consequences that can result when a business is interrupted by a fire. A fire department that prevents a building from becoming a total loss is therefore doing more than extinguishing flames. It is helping preserve property, jobs, business operations and the economic activity associated with that business.
That is why I believe public-safety leaders need to change the conversation from activity to value.
It is easy to tell taxpayers how many officers an agency employs, how many calls it answers, how many fires it fights, how many patients EMS transports or how many emergency calls a dispatch center handles. Those numbers are important, but they don’t necessarily explain the value created by the organization. The more meaningful conversation is about what those resources allow the organization to accomplish and what happens to the community when those capabilities are reduced.
Instead of simply telling elected officials that a police department needs additional officers, explain what those officers allow the department to do. Explain what happens to response capability when several serious incidents occur simultaneously, what happens to investigations when caseloads become excessive, what happens to proactive enforcement when officers are continually pulled from one emergency to another, and what happens to the business community when police resources are insufficient to address recurring problems.
The same logic applies to fire, EMS and 911. A request for another ambulance should be connected to what happens when the existing ambulance is already committed to another call. A request for additional firefighters should explain how staffing affects the department’s ability to respond safely and effectively when multiple emergencies occur. A request for additional dispatchers should explain what happens when call volume exceeds the capacity of the communications center.
The public needs to understand the connection between resources, capability, performance, and community value.
That becomes particularly important when we talk about economic development.
Economic development is frequently treated as the responsibility of an economic-development department. Communities recruit companies, offer incentives, build industrial parks, market themselves and attend conferences in an effort to attract investment. All of those activities can be worthwhile, but there is another economic-development organization sitting inside virtually every community.
It is called public safety.
A company considering a new location doesn’t look only at tax rates and available buildings. It also considers whether its employees will want to work there, whether customers will want to visit, what insurance will cost, how much security the company will have to provide, how easily employees and customers can move through the community, the safety of their children in local schools, and whether emergency services can respond effectively when something goes wrong.
Businesses make those calculations every day, whether government officials recognize it or not.
We can see that in communities across the country.
Portland, Oregon, provides one example. REI closed its Pearl District store in 2024 after approximately two decades at that location. The company reported that the store had experienced its highest number of break-ins and thefts in two decades and said it had spent more than $800,000 on additional security in 2022 while experiencing 10 burglaries. REI also cited other factors involving the location and property, so crime was not the only reason for the closure. Nevertheless, the company specifically identified employee and customer safety as part of its decision.
Target provides another example because its 2023 store closures involved several communities at once. The company announced that it would close nine stores in four states because theft and organized retail crime were threatening employee and customer safety and contributing to what it described as unsustainable business performance. The affected locations included stores in Seattle, Portland, and the San Francisco-Oakland market. Target also reported that it had already invested in additional security personnel, third-party guards, and theft-deterrent technology before making the decision to close those locations.
That is significant because it demonstrates something that elected officials should understand. A business doesn’t necessarily leave a community because of one incident. The decision can occur after the cumulative cost of dealing with repeated problems becomes greater than the economic benefit of remaining in that location.
Oakland provides another particularly clear example. In-N-Out Burger announced in 2024 that it would close its only Oakland restaurant, making it the first location in the company’s then-75-year history to close. The company cited continuing safety concerns, including car break-ins, theft, and robberies affecting customers and employees. The Associated Press reported that police had recorded more than 1,300 incidents in the vicinity of the restaurant since 2019, including more than 1,100 car break-ins.
One restaurant closure does not prove that an entire community has failed, nor does it establish that public safety was the sole cause of the company’s decision. What it does demonstrate is that businesses make economic decisions based upon the environment in which they operate. When safety becomes part of the cost of doing business, that cost becomes part of the business decision.
Philadelphia provides another example. Wawa closed two Center City locations in 2022 and cited continued safety and security challenges along with other business factors. Wawa continued operating other locations in Philadelphia, which is important because it demonstrates why these situations should not be reduced to simplistic claims that a company has abandoned an entire community. Nevertheless, safety and security were part of the company’s explanation for those particular closures.
San Francisco provides an even broader illustration because the decline of its downtown business district cannot reasonably be attributed to a single cause. The pandemic dramatically reduced downtown foot traffic, remote work changed commuting patterns, online shopping changed retail, and inflation and labor costs affected businesses. At the same time, crime, drug use, homelessness, and concerns about personal safety became significant issues for retailers and customers. Major retailers including Whole Foods, Old Navy, and Nordstrom closed downtown locations during this period, while analysts and business owners identified multiple contributing factors.
Whole Foods provides a particularly useful example because the company temporarily closed its Mid-Market location in 2023 specifically because of public-safety concerns. That decision occurred within a much larger transformation of downtown San Francisco, but it illustrates how safety can become a direct business consideration even when other economic forces are operating at the same time.
Los Angeles demonstrates the same principle on a much larger scale. Recent reporting on downtown Los Angeles found that nearly 1,000 businesses left downtown during 2024 while office and retail vacancies remained substantial. Business owners have cited crime, homelessness, infrastructure problems, and reduced customer traffic among their concerns, while remote work has also substantially changed the downtown economic environment. Companies including Deloitte and KPMG have reduced their downtown presence.
Again, it would be irresponsible to suggest that public safety explains every business closure in Los Angeles. It doesn’t. Downtown Los Angeles, like downtown San Francisco and many other urban centers, is dealing with a complicated combination of economic, social, transportation, housing, workplace, and public-safety issues.
But that complexity actually strengthens the argument.
Public safety doesn’t have to be the only problem before it becomes an economic problem.
If a business is already struggling with declining foot traffic, high rents, labor costs and changing consumer behavior, adding repeated theft, vandalism, employee-safety concerns or expensive private security can make the economic calculation even more difficult.
That is the point elected officials need to understand.
One store closes. Another reduces its hours. A restaurant decides not to reopen. A company moves its offices. A property owner has difficulty finding a tenant. A downtown building loses workers. Fewer workers mean fewer customers. Fewer customers mean fewer businesses. More vacant storefronts can reduce pedestrian activity, which can make the environment less attractive to the businesses and customers who remain.
The process can become self-reinforcing.
This is why public safety should not be viewed simply as a service provided when somebody calls 911. It is one of the conditions that allows the local economy to function.
There is another economic consideration that deserves attention: the cost of private replacement.
Businesses can install cameras, hire security guards, improve lighting, reinforce doors, lock merchandise behind glass and redesign parking lots. They can do many things to protect themselves, and they should take reasonable responsibility for protecting their employees and property.
But a business cannot create a police department. A restaurant owner cannot investigate a robbery. A retailer cannot prosecute an organized theft operation. A property owner cannot provide emergency medical care. A company cannot operate a community-wide 911 system, and a private security guard cannot replace every function performed by trained public-safety professionals.
When businesses have to spend increasing amounts of money trying to compensate for inadequate public safety, those expenditures become another cost of doing business. That money could otherwise be used for additional employees, improved wages, equipment, expansion, technology or other investments.
In other words, inadequate public safety can create a private tax.
It may never appear on a government tax bill, but businesses still pay it.
That is why I believe elected officials should ask not only, “How much does public safety cost?” but also, “What does inadequate public safety cost our community?”
The second question is harder, but it is arguably more important.
What happens to sales-tax revenue when customers take their spending elsewhere? What happens to commercial property values when storefronts remain vacant? What happens to employment when businesses close? What happens to insurance costs when businesses experience repeated theft and vandalism? What happens when private employers spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on security that they previously expected the public sector to provide? What happens when a prospective employer compares two communities and concludes that one presents fewer operational risks?
These are economic-development questions.
They are also public-safety questions.
And they are taxpayer questions.
This is where I believe public-safety leaders have an obligation to become better communicators and, frankly, better businesspeople. I’m not suggesting that police chiefs, fire chiefs, EMS directors or 911 directors need to become corporate executives. They don’t. I am suggesting that they need to understand the economics of the services they provide and be able to explain that value to the people who ultimately fund those services.
Every staffing decision affects capability. Capability affects performance. Performance affects community confidence. Community confidence can influence whether people choose to work, shop, invest and operate businesses in a particular community.
Those relationships may not be immediate or easily measurable, but they are real.
That is why I think public-safety leaders should stop thinking about taxpayers solely as taxpayers.
They are also customers.
A customer wants to know what he or she receives in return for the money being spent. Government should be no different. The taxpayer is paying for public safety, and the taxpayer deserves to understand what that investment accomplishes.
The answer should not simply be that the community has police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and dispatchers.
The answer should explain how those people and resources help create a community where businesses can operate, employees can work, customers can shop, property can be protected, emergencies can be managed, and economic activity can continue when something goes wrong.
That is value.
And if public safety is an investment, then the public has every right to expect accountability for that investment. Public-safety organizations should be able to explain what they are trying to accomplish, what resources they require, what outcomes they expect, how those outcomes will be measured, and what happens if the investment does not produce the expected results.
That is simply good management.
It is also good government.
The conversation should therefore move beyond the question of how much public safety costs. We should ask what the community receives for that investment and what the community risks losing when the investment is inadequate.
A police department with insufficient staffing may not immediately produce a line item on the economic-development budget, but if response times increase, investigations slow, proactive enforcement declines, and businesses experience more security problems, there can eventually be economic consequences. A fire department operating below an appropriate staffing level may not immediately produce a visible economic loss, but if response capability is compromised during a major incident, the resulting property and business losses can be enormous. An EMS system with inadequate coverage may not show its economic consequences on the day a unit is unavailable, but delays during medical emergencies can affect people, families, employers, and the broader economy.
This is why I believe elected officials have a responsibility to educate their constituents about the relationship between public safety and economic vitality.
The public should know what police, fire, EMS, and 911 cost. But the public should also understand what those services make possible.
They should understand that a properly staffed fire department isn’t simply sitting around waiting for something to happen. It is maintaining the capacity to respond when something does happen. They should understand that a properly staffed police department isn’t simply reacting to crimes. It is providing the capacity to prevent, investigate, and disrupt criminal activity. They should understand that an EMS system isn’t simply driving ambulances. It is providing time-sensitive medical intervention that can preserve lives and future productivity. They should understand that a properly staffed 911 center isn’t simply answering telephones. It is the entry point into the entire emergency-response system.
All of those functions are interconnected.
Public safety is a system, and the economy is a system. When one part of either system becomes weakened, the effects can eventually move into other parts.
That is why the experiences of Portland, Seattle, Oakland, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Los Angeles deserve attention. They should not be turned into simplistic political talking points because every community has its own circumstances and businesses leave locations for many reasons. The more useful lesson is that businesses make decisions based upon the environments in which they operate, and safety is one component of that environment.
When safety deteriorates sufficiently, some businesses spend more money to compensate. Some reduce hours. Some relocate. Some close.
And when businesses leave, the consequences extend beyond the business owner. Employees are affected. Customers are affected. Property owners are affected. Other businesses are affected. The tax base can be affected. A community’s reputation can be affected, and economic development can become more difficult.
That is why public safety deserves to be discussed alongside roads, water systems, utilities, communications networks and other forms of infrastructure.
We don’t build a road simply because we like roads. We build it because people and commerce need to move.
We don’t maintain water systems simply because water systems are nice to have. Businesses and residents cannot function without them.
And we shouldn’t think about police, fire, EMS, and 911 solely as expenses because their value isn’t limited to what happens when someone calls for help.
They help create the conditions under which people can live, work, invest, shop, and build businesses.
A community that wants economic growth therefore has to pay attention to the infrastructure that makes that growth possible.
Public safety is part of that infrastructure.
The businesses that have left Portland, Seattle, Oakland, Philadelphia, San Francisco and other communities should not be used simply as ammunition in a political argument. Their experiences are more useful than that. They give elected officials an opportunity to examine what happens when the cost, risk, and difficulty of doing business in a community become sufficiently high that owners and executives begin looking elsewhere.
The question isn’t whether public safety is the only factor in every business decision.
It clearly isn’t.
The question is whether public safety is one of the conditions that makes a community economically viable.
I believe the evidence and common sense point to the same conclusion.
Public safety is not merely something a community pays for when people need help. It is an investment in the economic infrastructure that allows the community to function.
And perhaps the most important question elected officials can ask isn’t, “How much will public safety cost us?”
It is this:
“What will inadequate public safety cost us?”
If you have a problem you’d like to discuss in a confidential, no-obligation Zoom visit, you can self-schedule it by clicking on this button:
Use this form to be notified about new articles as I publish them!
Additional Reading
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Crashes Cost America $340 Billion in 2019. This provides the broader economic context for understanding public safety as an economic issue, including medical costs, lost productivity, property damage, congestion, and other societal costs.
Target Corporation. Target Closes Select Stores to Prioritize Team Member and Guest Safety. Target’s own September 2023 statement explains why it closed nine stores, including locations in Seattle, Portland, and the San Francisco/Oakland market, and describes the company’s previous investments in security and theft-deterrent measures.
Portland Monthly. Portland’s Only REI Store Closes for Good. This article documents REI’s closure of its Pearl District location and the company’s statement that increased break-ins and thefts, despite additional security, were a factor in the decision.
Associated Press. In-N-Out to Close First Location in Its 75-Year History Due to a Wave of Car Break-Ins and Robberies. The article documents the company’s decision to close its Oakland location and the safety concerns cited by the company.
Bay Area Council Economic Institute. Making Oakland Safe and Its Economy Strong. This report examines the relationship between public safety and Oakland’s business climate, including security costs, business departures, business-tax accounts, commercial real estate, and changes in customer visitation.
CBS Philadelphia. Wawa to Close 2 Center City Stores Over Safety Concerns. This report documents Wawa’s decision to close two Center City locations and the company’s statement that continuing safety and security challenges, along with other business factors, made remaining open increasingly difficult.
ABC News. Whole Foods Closes Flagship San Francisco Store Over Employee Safety Concerns. This report documents Whole Foods’ temporary closure of its large Mid-Market San Francisco store because of employee-safety concerns and places the decision within the broader changes occurring in the city’s downtown business environment.
Los Angeles Times. Downtown L.A. Businesses Demand Attention From the Mayor’s Race. The article examines the departure of nearly 1,000 businesses from downtown Los Angeles during 2024 and reports concerns from downtown business owners regarding crime, homelessness, infrastructure, remote work, and declining customer traffic.
Los Angeles Times. “We’ve Lost Our Way”: Clifton’s Operator Gives Up on Downtown Los Angeles. This provides a particularly useful individual-business example, documenting the decision not to reopen the historic Clifton’s after substantial investment and continuing difficulties operating in downtown Los Angeles.
Author’s Note: The content provided in this article is designed exclusively for educational and informational purposes, reflecting opinions shaped by decades of leadership training and organizational consulting experience. It should never be interpreted as formal professional advice. By reading or engaging with this material, you acknowledge that no professional-client relationship is established and that these insights do not substitute for tailored guidance from a qualified professional familiar with your specific circumstances. Consequently, readers are strongly advised to seek independent counsel from licensed legal, financial, medical, or other appropriate advisors before implementing any strategies or making decisions based on these perspectives. Ultimately, you assume full personal responsibility for any actions you choose to take or omit as a result of reading this material, releasing the author and publisher from any liability for outcomes arising from your reliance on the text.
