Planning For Chicago-owned Grocery Stores

1. 84

   GA Andersonposted 22 months ago

   This idea is so ripe that there is something for everyone. The meme makers are drooling over those old pictures of empty shelves in Soviet Union(?)  grocery stores.
   
   Mayor Johnson Announces The Exploration Of A Municipally Owned Grocery Store
   
   Exploring a municipally owned grocery store is part of the Johnson administration’s goal of promoting food equity and accessibility for all Chicagoans.
   source: Chicago Mayour's office
   
   The reason: "Historic disinvestment has led to inequitable access to food retail across Chicago, and these existing inequities have been exacerbated as at least six grocery stores closed on the South and West sides over the past two years."
   ecifics
   Google says the other retailers that left were also primarily in Chicago's South and West sides.
   
   Neither the city nor Walmart's statements offer more than "unprofitability" as the reason.
   
   Considering the recent couple of years of national exposure to videos of brazen shoplifting on a mass scale, it seems reasonable to think crime is a primary reason for the closings.
   
   The mayor is aware of this, even if he won't say it. The planned municipal grocery stores will have police substations adjacent to the entrances.*
   
   GA
   *I invented that last part, but the shelves will look just like the memes if the city stores don't have in-store security.

   replyreport
   1. 100

      DrMark1961posted 22 months agoin reply to this

      We have a state-owned grocery store in the area I live in. It is not profitable like a regular store, and has much less selection since profit is not something they can even try for, but if the state is willing to subsidize this it may be a better solution for the poor.
      
      Your last point is valid. We do not have the shoplifting here (maybe because people would be arrested for this are not routinely let out on bail and Brazilian prison life is much much worse than other countries) but if that was a problem the grocery store could not even function with state subsidies.

      replyreport
   2. 75

      tsmogposted 22 months agoin reply to this

      hmmm . . .  leftist socialist communist philosophy at work, eh? When I lived in Washington state back in '78 the liquor stores were all state owned. It remains that way in some states, however, private liquor sales occur in Washington state now. The cause for state-owned liquor stores is/was prompted by different reasoning, right? Yet, the result is the same business-wise as I see it.
      
      I think to an extent it is simply meeting a demand with a supply. Yet, is it warranted? There are stores remaining in those areas from what I have learned. No one is starving. The worst scenario with one store system I read is it was common to see spoiled veggies and fruit along with expired products on the shelves.
      
      I would think evolution will eventually weed it out as people stop more and more from shopping there. You know, survival of the fittest. Is that why the mayor wants to offer an alternative? Quality over profit?
      
      After all the city-owned store doesn't have to make a profit from what I have learned. Yet, why should the city be the provider and not private entities? Do prospective capital investors not see an opportunity? Is there a propensity for grants and such for investment opportunities? Yet, again is that ruled out as a leftist strategy?
      
      So, again, I return to whether is it warranted and whether it is showboating is a question I ask myself. From my perspective, at this time, it isn't warranted.
      
      One of several articles I read is:
      
      Supermarket closings are the latest blow to South and West side neighborhoods by Crain's Chicago Business (Aug 14, 2023) In my perspective it presents a good overview of why stores closed and summarizes why stores remain.
      https://www.chicagobusiness.com/equity/ … west-sides
      
      And, to gain more perspective on the areas involved is:
      
      The "Sides" of Chicago by Chicago Studies (Aug 27, 2020).
      https://chicagostudies.uchicago.edu/sides
      
      Overall his idea whether hair-brained or not will carry a lot of baggage. I mean c'mon how much effect will one store make? I don't think much, honestly. After all the article you recommended stated "63.5% of residents in West Englewood and 52% of residents in East Garfield Park live more than half a mile from their nearest grocery store". A half mile? C'mon south side Chicago is 3.34 sq miles. Most will be more than a half mile away from a city owned store, right?
      
      Although, personally, I live almost exactly 1/2 mile from the grocery store I shop at the next closest is nearly 2-1/2 miles. How close is your store?
      
      Did a little wandering as I was in the mood to write. Alas, tomorrow is my birthday and I got a head start today with Jack Daniels,

      replyreport
   3. 84

      Sharlee01posted 22 months agoin reply to this

      In my view, this scenario underscores a multifaceted societal issue. The persistent issue of uncontrolled crime converges with the profit-oriented principles of capitalism, resulting in a pressing challenge of food inequality on Chicago's Southside. The Mayor proposed a solution that aims to provide residents in the area with renewed access to grocery stores, offering them a chance to purchase essential food items once more. The big question remains: will crime overpower and thwart this well-meaning solution? 
      
      Disturbing that America has come to need local Governments to face this form of problem due to out-of-control crime.

      replyreport
2. 75

   tsmogposted 22 months ago

   In my Reason online magazine newsletter, the top article was: Chicago: From Stacker of Wheat to Stacker of Wheat Thins! (09/20/2023) Its subheading is: Mayor Brandon Johnson should remember the sorry history of state-run supermarkets.
   
   https://reason.com/2023/09/20/chicago-f … eat-thins/
   
   An excerpt;
   
   "Somehow, a city that cannot keep its residents from moving, protect the ones who stay, or educate its children will succeed in a business as difficult as the supermarket game. Somehow, a government synonymous with corruption—"more than three dozen Chicago aldermen have been indicted by federal grand juries over the past 50 years"—will thrive in a business environment that sent Walmart, Whole Foods, and Aldi, among other chains, packing."
   
   And, toward the end of the article it shares;
   
   "If there's a silver lining to Mayor Johnson's ridiculous proposal, it's that it sounds more like vaporware than a hardcore commitment. As the Chicago Tribune notes, "The first step will be to perform a feasibility study, though the city did not provide a timeline." In true bureaucratic fashion, things will take a long time to even get postponed indefinitely."

   replyreport
   1. 100

      DrMark1961posted 22 months agoin reply to this

      There will be no profit motive so it is very different than Walmart or Aldi. If theives do not clear the shelves every day it does have a chance of working, but of course those people in Chicago that still pay taxes are going to have to foot the bill.

      replyreport