Have you considered the possibility that changing crime rates can be attributed to wider socioeconomic phenomena and not whoever happens to be in charge of the city/state/country? Or are you just using this opportunity to display your prejudices?
It has nothing to do with "who's in charge," but it has everything to do with the specific policies that have been put in place, and Gascon's policies have been terrible.
I think our justice system desperately needs reform, but it needs to be done in a competent way. Could it be that your own prejudices are preventing you from Gascon's half-baked efforts with an objective, critical eye?
The fact that even questioning the effectiveness of an individual's policies gets you labeled as "prejudiced" sums up so much that's wrong with modern progressivism.
People do this all the time. People show up in San Francisco all the time with no money or belongings to their name.
It's very easy if you have incentive, or if you have nothing keeping where you are. Career criminals have every incentive in the world to move to a city where they'll be treated lightly, and often nothing holding them back.
Was there an influx of criminals from outside San Francisco? Or did law-abiding citizens turn to crime? Or did the crimes per criminal go up?
In any case, it was a disaster. Los Angeles deserves what it gets for voting him in.