Ignore The Crime, Then Wave Goodbye
Chicago, like San Francisco, Seattle, New York, and other blue cities, is a notorious slow learner but extremely quick to blame, whine, cry, and threaten. Chicago, like many blue cities run by Democrats, ignores the fact that sections of its cities are infested with theft and violent crime, and stores operating in those areas cannot continue to lose money and put their employees in jeopardy.
Walgreens is the latest store to throw in the towel and say enough is enough. The corporation announced that it will close its Chatham neighborhood store at 8628 S. Cottage Grove Ave. on June 4, 2026, marking the sixth South Side closure in a year due to high rates of theft, violent incidents, and safety concerns. Prescriptions normally filled at this location will be moved to the 87th and Stony Island location, which is about 5 minutes or 1.2 miles away.
Walgreens repeated to the Chicago Sun-Times that theft and violent incidents are the main reasons behind its decision to close another store.
“Despite a range of efforts, including previous operating adjustments, these ongoing safety challenges have made it increasingly difficult to maintain a secure environment for our team members and customers. While this was not an easy decision, safety must remain our top priority.”
The company has confirmed that employees at this location will be eligible to transfer to other stores.
The announcement comes more than two years after the Chatham drugstore reduced its hours from 24-hour service to a midnight closing. At that time, a company spokesperson stated that the change was “due to an operational decision.”
Yes, an “operational decision” to turn off the theft faucet and to keep their employees safe.
Chicago, like other blue cities where these closings have taken place, have all had plenty of notice that things were not going well. Instead of stepping up and protecting these stores from constant, blatant theft and violence, they ignored the problem. Now they want to scream at the sky and cry foul against the company.
Alderman William Hall joined the protesters, complaining about the closure, and had the unmitigated gall to say that the retailer should be charged with “first-degree corporate abandonment.”
“Walgreens should be charged with first-degree corporate abandonment. It should be a crime, the way they’re treating our elders. It should be a crime, the way they’re treating our families.”
No, dufus, you and other city officials should have been concerned with cracking down on crime and keeping retailers like Walgreens safe, instead of worrying about protecting illegals and fighting with ICE.
Hall stated that the community is not “begging” Walgreens to stay, but he believes the company is making a mistake by leaving residents without a place to fill their medical prescriptions. He warned that the closure would lead to a “medicine drought” for seniors and residents managing chronic health conditions.
“We’re not here to beg Walgreens to stay. We are saying that their decision is the wrong decision. In my opinion, it should be considered a first-degree corporate crime… the number of elderly people who will not have access to healthcare is evil.”
He also complained that Walgreens “displaced” all the small, local businesses in the area when it first opened.
Alderman Raymond Lopez, a Democrat, had a brief moment of clarity, saying he understands the community’s frustration but questioned the timing of the outrage.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, he said:
“Where was that anger when the stores in our communities were under years and years of assault by criminals allowed to shoplift, vandalize, and destroy neighborhood institutions?”
“Many leaders say it is simply an insurance matter. They are wrong. There are real-world consequences for crime running rampant. This closure is the perfect example of that effect.”
This isn’t “corporate abandonment” as Hall likes to claim. This is a case of city officials abandoning their responsibilities to the residents and retailers in their town, then feigning outrage over a situation they are solely responsible for.
