Nearly two years ago, we wrote that Chicago needed to respond urgently to the message delivered at the time by the CEO of Walgreens, then the region’s largest publicly traded company.
Walgreens was performing poorly financially and then-CEO Tim Wentworth decided the giant pharmacy chain needed to close many hundreds — maybe more than 1,000 — of its money-losing stores around the country. Without saying so explicitly, he made clear that locations in high-crime neighborhoods where shops were targeted regularly by retail thieves could be shuttered unless cities stepped up and clamped down on the crimes.
Fast forward to the present and Walgreens no longer is publicly traded. It’s owned now by New York-based private-equity firm Sycamore Partners. And Wentworth no longer is CEO. That role is filled now by Mike Motz, who previously ran office supply chain Staples.
But some things remain the same. Walgreens isn’t hesitating to close stores in parts of Chicago where theft is frequent and there are legitimate concerns about the safety of employees and customers. The latest casualty is in Chicago’s Chatham neighborhood on the South Side, where Walgreens will shutter that neighborhood’s store next month.
In a statement, Walgreens didn’t mince words. It’s leaving Chatham due to “significantly higher levels of theft and violent incidents than our other locations.” The company said it had become “increasingly difficult to maintain a secure environment for our team members and customers.”
Early last year, Walgreens shut down five South and Southwest Side locations in the first wave of closures that followed Wentworth’s remarks the year before. In those cases, unprofitability was as much the story as safety, if not more.
But, at least judging by the rationale Walgreens gave for the Chatham decision, cost savings took a back seat to simple security. The company said the store’s employees will be offered jobs elsewhere in the chain.
That straightforward reasoning didn’t stop 6th Ward Ald. William Hall, who represents Chatham, from excoriating the company. “Walgreens should be charged with first-degree corporate abandonment,” Hall stated at a news conference in front of the Chatham Walgreens, accompanied by others from the neighborhood.
Hall said senior citizens who rely on the Walgreens for their prescriptions would have to travel a mile to visit an alternative Walgreens. “It is an inconvenience on a cold day, a rainy day or a snowy day,” he told Fox-Ch. 32.
Yes, it is. But it is a testament to just how many Walgreens there are in the city of Chicago — well over 100 even after these latest closures, by far the most of any city in the U.S. — that there are not one but two options about a mile apart. It’s a seven-minute bus ride east on 87th Street to the Walgreens just east of Stony Island Avenue from the Chatham Walgreens at 87th and Cottage Grove Avenue.
Still, of course we understand the frustration. Pharmacies, grocery stores, banks and similar retailers are crucial parts of healthy neighborhoods. Losing any or all of them isn’t just inconvenient; it also reinforces narratives about a neighborhood’s vibrancy, or lack thereof.
But here’s a major issue with Hall’s attack on Walgreens. He did not at any point in the interviews we viewed acknowledge the company’s key concern. Walgreens said it didn’t feel like it could safely operate the store. That’s a non-negotiable problem.
What are Hall’s ideas for making his neighborhood a safer place to do business? To work?
The alderman told one of his interviewers that he intended to contact CVS, Walgreens’ chief U.S. rival, about opening in that location.
For the sake of Chatham, we hope he’s successful. But here’s another key question for the alderman: Why would any company take the risk to invest in his neighborhood knowing that they’ll be demonized if, like Walgreens, they determine they can’t operate safely?
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
