The items he listed have extremely direct impact on YOUR ability to reduce theft. You just suggested something very broad. I might make the point that punishing criminals effectively will potentially reduce overall crime, but has no direct reduction on the crime in the article. It would be very hard to show any law which specifically targets the type of crime OP posted about, but I'm open if you have seen legislation proposed or enacted which targets this crime in a major city.
Property crime is so far down the list on police priorities. Criminals know this. Soft on crime - even if it's due to lack of resources and is "only" property crime - means more crime.
The only effective way to deal with property crime during or after the fact is with increased surveillance. The success of Meta Ray Bans may make the decision for us, but until then, it's fair to point out that this is, in fact, a conversation about how much freedom we want to give up for security.
It seems more effective and less intrusive to deal with the upstream socioeconomic causes of crime (too much inequality, not enough opportunity, an overemphasis on materiality and consumption, and an underemphasis on community and expression).
