Mamdani's State-run Grocery Store Plan
What is his plan?
State-run grocery stores for the poor have failed every time (???) they have been tried.
The most recent closure (Kansas City) was announced in December — almost the same news cycle that announced NYC's grocery store plan.
What can Mayor Mamdani do differently to make his efforts work?
GAAs for how far he can take the idea of state run grocery stores, will the idea fall on its face, can the idea be modified in some fashion. I am more than content to let the voters have the final verdict as to whether his ideas can actually work or not. Even if it turns out that it is too far and the oligarchy hollers, he is pushing things in my preferred direction and i give credit for that.
Stick to the question; whether he's 'your guy' isn't relevant. And beating up on Momdani is secondary to the point.
The voters won't have a say in whether his idea works or in the costs to come. History, reality, and the specifics of NYC's plan show that the stores won't work.
The question was serious: what can he do differently to make 'his' plan work?
One proponent says they just haven't been done right; they (the state-run stores) need to be established at a Costco-type distribution-center level. That '... it just hasn't been done right, yet' rationalization doesn't sound right to me.
The idea has proven to be unsuccessful. What can Momdani do differently?
GAGiven the truly massive subsidies he will have to provide I don't see anything he can do outside of germinate a whole orchard of money trees.
The problem isn't just that he wants to cut costs, he must also either provide free groceries to everyone OR somehow protect his stock in trade from disappearing. Both take huge infusions of money.
Of course, if he could just convince the people he is trying to service that crime does not pay, that it is immoral, then the protection isn't a problem. How to produce that miracle, though, I haven't a clue.Your "massive subsidies" point was the OP's point.
The Momdani plan appears so obviously unworkable that just asking how to support it will discredit Momdani more than attacking him directly.
The headlines: 30% discount, ID cards for discounts, ID cards to stop arbitrage, no profit motive, etc, are already trashing the concept. It's not a realistic idea.
There is a reason for food deserts. The Missouri efforts, and their failure, highlight the starkest ones: crime-ridden neighborhoods, retail theft, and no management incentive (aka profit) to 'do better.'
GAThat's why I mentioned the orchard. I have no other suggestions, for I do not believe he can raise taxes enough to do the job. He might raise the percentages, but get them high enough to do what he wants and he will find nobody but the poor to pay them, who he has declared will not pay anything.
GA and Wilderness seem to imply that a major reason for food deserts is crime in poor neighborhoods, which of course disproportionately means poor minority neighborhoods. I reach that conclusion from statements such as “There is a reason for food deserts. The Missouri efforts, and their failure, highlight the starkest ones: crime-ridden neighborhoods, retail theft, and no management incentive (aka profit) to ‘do better,’” or the argument that Mamdani will have to either “provide free food OR pay for a great deal of security. That's why other stores have left, after all.”
There is a problem with those explanations: the evidence doesn't establish that retail theft is the primary reason food deserts exist. - that is just a conservative talking point Theft certainly can contribute to a store's failure, particularly in a business with grocery-store margins. But supermarkets also disappear—or never open—because of rents, labor costs, transportation and distribution costs, population and purchasing power, competition, financing, store size, parking, simply the expected return on investment, or sometimes racist attitudes.
Instead of immediately looking to one of conservatives' favorite whipping boys—crime among the urban poor—consider the scale of economic losses occurring elsewhere in American society.
Estimates of annual shoplifting losses are in the tens of billions of dollars. There isn't a good national government statistic giving us an exact number. We also need to be careful not to confuse shoplifting with “shrink,” which also includes employee theft, vendor fraud and inventory errors. Something on the order of $40–$50 billion annually is a reasonable ballpark for external retail theft, but it shouldn't be presented as a precise audited figure.
Now compare that with other ways Americans lose money. The IRS estimates that $696 billion in legally owed federal taxes were not paid on time in 2022 alone. Wage theft—employers illegally failing to pay workers what they are owed—has been estimated at as much as $50 billion annually. Price fixing, anticompetitive practices and monopoly power can extract still more from consumers, although putting one defensible annual number on those losses is much harder. Why are these not part of the conservative narrative?
And there is something else interesting about shoplifting itself. The evidence doesn't support a simple poor neighborhood = shoplifting equation. A Council on Criminal Justice study found shoplifting was extraordinarily concentrated at particular retail locations: just 5% of addresses accounted for 68.5% of reported shoplifting in Chicago and 62.8% in Los Angeles. In Chicago, one of the largest concentrations was downtown, with another around Old Town/River North/Lincoln Park—hardly evidence that shoplifting is uniquely a problem of impoverished neighborhoods as conservatives want you to believe.
None of this means retail theft isn't real. It is. Nor does it prove Mamdani's grocery-store experiment will succeed. It may fail spectacularly. But if we're going to explain food deserts, let's actually find out why the stores in those particular neighborhoods left rather than assume we already know the answer.
That brings us back to what I think is the real question about Mamdani's proposal: Are there neighborhoods in New York with enough people and enough grocery spending to support a full-service store, but which private companies nevertheless decline to serve because the expected return isn't attractive enough?
If the answer is no—if there simply isn't sufficient demand to sustain a grocery store—then Mamdani may be proposing a very expensive permanent subsidy.
But if the answer is yes, then we have something economists have been dealing with forever: a socially desirable service that the private market isn't providing adequately because the private return isn't sufficient. Government routinely intervenes in precisely those situations. Rural transportation, utilities, hospitals, agriculture, public transit and even rural grocery initiatives receive public assistance for that reason.
And Mamdani isn't proposing that bureaucrats stock shelves and run cash registers. The stores would be city-owned and publicly supported, while experienced private grocery operators would manage their day-to-day operations under city requirements. That doesn't guarantee success, but it is considerably different from the caricature of City Hall trying to run a supermarket.
While Kansas City's failure is relevant evidence, it isn't the entire body of evidence. There are also American grocery cooperatives and publicly assisted community grocery projects that have survived for years. They aren't identical to Mamdani's model either, which is precisely why the sensible question isn't “Has anything vaguely resembling this ever failed?” Of course it has.
The sensible question is: Why did particular projects fail, why did others succeed, and has Mamdani designed his program around those lessons?
That's the discussion worth having. Blaming food deserts on poor people stealing groceries before we've even established why the grocery stores disappeared isn't an economic analysis is simple scapegoating. It's starting with a preferred explanation and working backward.Eso, you can close your eyes to the obvious facts, you can pretend it doesn't happen, you can blame conservatives till the sun dies, but the FACT remains that the inner cities are dying because stores are suffering too much loss from "shoplifting".
There are just too many reports from businesses folding because of this kind of loss to reasonably pretend it isn't happening. In the case of groceries, the feds make sure the money is there - it's just that it isn't being used. When idiots decide that a $1,000 loss is OK, and not to be prosecuted, there is a massive problem, and we can no longer pretend it isn't there.
It IS there, and it IS the root cause of food deserts. Crime is closing down our city centers even as we defund police and change the rules so they can no longer catch and restrain criminals. The food desert is just one result of the soft on crime actions, from parental teachings to legislators and judges refusing to give consequences for poor behavior.After a page of blather, you get to "a discussion worth having;"
"... has Mamdani designed his program around those lessons?"
You are late to the game; that was the OP's question:
"What can Mayor Mamdani do differently to make his efforts work?"
Whadaya think?
But, on 'the other hand,' you're killing me, it's all I can do not to cut-n-paste an AI response to your denial of crime and theft issues. AI's first paragraph supplies the 'official' (from the closing entity) list of three primary reasons for the Sunfresh closure.
The three listed as primary were; extreme financial and security burdens, due to related security costs, theft, and employee safety concerns. (it was noted the store paid $5000 - $6000 per week for security due to employee and customer concerns, with some employees carrying personal tasers.
But that is just one anecdote. Maybe it's not enough to form an impression? Or maybe the Chatbot got it wrong by offering it first?
You put so much effort into rationalizing a denial of easily found 'facts' when the same tool probably gave you the same answer it gave me first.
GAOn second thought, that was a bit snarky, and you're on vacation. My bad, sorry. ;-)
GACan you explain why the following is "blather"?
- the evidence doesn't establish that retail theft is the primary reason food deserts exist. -
- Showing that white collar crime by the wealthy is an order of magnitude bigger (yet ignored by conservatives) problem than retain theft.
- The evidence doesn't support a simple poor neighborhood = shoplifting equation.
- In Chicago, one of the largest concentrations was downtown, with another around Old Town/River North/Lincoln Park—hardly evidence that shoplifting is uniquely a problem of impoverished neighborhoods as conservatives want you to believe.
- While Kansas City's failure is relevant evidence, it isn't the entire body of evidence.
Also, your OP implies (well actually says) Mamdami's approach is a failure from the get go - something that is not supported by facts or logic. So why do something differently?
By the way - where did I "deny" there were crime and theft problems? What I pushed back on is that crime and theft is the end all, be all you imply it is.
Using Sunfresh and ONLY Sunfresh is misleading at best. Prove Sunfresh just isn't the outlier it appears to be.
“Instead of immediately looking to one of conservatives' favorite whipping boys—crime among the urban poor—consider the scale of economic losses occurring elsewhere in American society.”
Thank you
Conservatives as always are rife with double standards and hypocrisy. They don’t care if this is even given a chance as it conflicts with their fundamental value system, people are poor as being their fault. Is that really true?
Why would Mamdami have to provide "massive" subsidies?
I didn't see where his plan was to provide free food; can you point that out to me?
Try convincing Trump that crime doesn't pay or is immoral first.If you think Mamdani can cut the price of groceries 30% you aren't nearly as smart as I thought you were.
The comment was that he either provides free food OR pays for a great deal of security. That's why other stores have left, after all.
Trump isn't stealing from the grocery stores in NYC.I'll return the insult - if you think that is what I thought, you aren't nearly as smart as I thought you were.
You provided NOTHING to support your claims that Mamdami is lowering prices on all grocery items by 30% (he is not)
You provided NOTHING to support your implication that crime is the reason the private sector won't provide service to those areas.
And you are right, Trump is not stealing from NYC grocery stores, that is too small a scale for him. Instead, he steals from all Americans everywhere.
Why do you conclude that from one example? The Kansas City example shows that one particular grocery model failed. It does not prove that every attempt to address food deserts through public support is unsuccessful. There are many American examples where communities, often with government assistance, successfully created or preserved grocery access.
What about these?
1. Wheatsville Food Co-op — Austin, Texas
Founded in 1976.
Grew from a small community cooperative into a successful multi-location grocery operation.
Lesson: Alternative grocery models can survive and thrive when they have strong local support and professional management. (Similar to Mamdami's plan)
2. Saranac Lake Community Store — New York
A rural community created a cooperative grocery after losing traditional grocery access.
Residents invested directly to preserve food access.
Lesson: When the market does not provide a service that a community considers essential, community-supported models can fill the gap.
3. North Dakota and rural Midwest grocery cooperatives
Many rural communities have used:
- cooperative ownership,
- USDA technical assistance,
- community development grants,
- local investment,
to keep grocery stores operating where national chains would not enter.
Lesson: Government support often works best as a catalyst, not as the operator.Mamdani's planned NYC grocery stores will not be co-ops, they will be state-owned and managed—with on-site daily management contracted out to a private enterprise, and prices set by the government. This makes it different from your listed co-op examples and closer to the Kansas City Sunfresh store comparison.
Your "lesson" isn't what Mamdani is planning.
Consider the current details: the 'market' (each targeted NYC borough site) was too negative to support private business. The details that drove them out will be the same for a state-run store. As I see it, subsidies will be the only way to keep the stores open.
Back to the OP's question: What can Mamdani do differently to make his plan work?
GALet's work on one question at a time then - "Why do you conclude from a single anecdote that ALL such attempts will fail?
First, relative to "all such attempts," the 'such attempts' I am speaking of are the ones of Mamdani's details: a low-income, high-crime market location; a government-owned and controlled property; government price controls; and government management of operations policies.
Those are the details of both the Kansas City and NYC examples. They are not the details of the co-op comparisons you offered.
Secondly, the thought didn't derive from a single anecdote; other examples can be found. The Sunfresh example was the most appropriate match to make the point (current timeframe relative to NYC and near-identical operations details). In short: 'same-same.'
As noted in another response, ask your chatbot which countries have government-run grocery stores or have tried them. You won't want to be on that list, and you won't find any successes within the parameters of "such attempts" as Mamdani's proposal.
As previously noted, the reason all such attempts will fail in America is our capitalist foundation in market economics and human nature.
GA
Note - the examples were cases where the gov't, city or state or federal, successfully were involved in the creation of or sustainment of non-private enterprises to provide food in underserved area
Yes they were, but they are not comparable to Mamdani's efforts—beyond the macro goal of helping poor folks eat.
GAI believe that helping poor people eat should be a preeminent goal, are conservatives truly opposed to this while offering fairy tales about America’s unlimited opportunity for all?
What about this thread's focus implies that "conservatives" are opposed to helping poor people eat?
The criticism is about a method, not a goal. Is that taboo because it's a liberal method being criticized? Don't prospects of success or failure matter in this consideration?
GAProspects DO matter, I don’t simply believe that certain failure is guaranteed from Momdami’s attempts in this direction. There is a great deal of variables and uncertainty between the proposed program and the outcome. The voters of New York will determine whether this Mamdami plan is a successful initiative or not. Is this not a reasonable way to let the issue run its course?
So, no, I can’t speak for how it will work and what tweaking will take place if it can be made to work, but neither can you….
It is time to explain what Mamdami's goal really is - and it isn't "city-owned and managed (in the normal sense) grocery retail operation that sets all the prices in the story. To be clear, the city will:
1. Step in where the private sector has FAILED to provide adequate service to large population groups.
2. Provide the physical assets to operate the stores.
3. Let a competitive contract to a professional private company to operationally manage the stores.
This includes merchandising, sourcing, supply chains, staffing, inventory management, food safety, security, customer service, and other day-to-day operations to include setting prices for the majority of items for sale
4. The city would provide contract management functions. This would include owning/supporting the stores and covering major overhead such as rent/property taxes; selects the operator; establishes the mission and standards; establishes affordability, labor, transparency and performance requirements; monitors contractual compliance; and subsidizing a "core set" of discounted products.
The goal is NOT to provide FREE food as Wilderness falsely claims, but to provide access to groceries, SOME of which would be subsidized, to large swaths of people that the private sector ignores for financial reasons.Nah, it's not time to explain his goals. A thread/tangent about Mamdani's "goals" would be different than this one, which is about a specific proposal. The OP was not critical of Mamdani's goals or political agenda; it was noted as criticism of a specific proposal—a government-run grocery store.
You are defending him for ideological reasons, when his ideology wasn't being challenged. It's off-topic and unnecessary.
I think I can, and have shown his plan to be a pending failure, can you show any support that it is more likely a pending success?
If you had to 'bet your farm,' which bet are you taking? ;-)
GAJust for the record, I think Democratic Socialism sucks and is as dangerous as the far-right.
My main concern, as a liberal, is to help people who are suffering through no fault of their own.
As to "showing" his plan is a likely failure is still based on a single anecdote as best as I can tell. In my opinion is that single anecdote proves that particular store failed.
Capitalism has clearly failed in food deserts. The conservative solution appears to do nothing and maintain the status quo. The liberal solution is to try to do something, which conservatives say will obviously fail, to help people become less food insecure.
Properly executed and with a sufficient population base, there is no reason it should fail, nor have you provided one.
As to the bet, I wouldn't take either side - too many variables.Just to make it clear, I am Social Democrat, accommodating capitalism, but keeping its abuses and oversights in the crosshairs. Elizabeth Warren is my model, Bernie Sanders is Democrat socialist and is step beyond for me right now.
Also "just for the record" ... The OP, and my comments are focused — for now — on the grocery store plan. Not as criticism of Mamdani's ideology.
Also, my criticism is about reality, facts-of-life stuff we have all lived and experienced. It's not partisan or ideologically driven. As a 'statistics' guy, the reality of this situation should be obvious to you. You shouldn't let your liberal side blind you to the facts of this specific proposal.
As for 'food deserts': capitalism did not fail; it simply adjusted to the market. The market could not sustain a type of free private stores, so they left. The market adjusted to what it could sustain. Comparatively speaking, it went from having discount cigarette stores to having a guy on the corner selling 'singles' out of his pack. That's not a failure. That's adjustment.
As to relying on one anecdote ... I do have a bit of life experience to go along with it. As do you. Enough to know that the 'facts' that drove out the free market — which had a strong motivation to make it work and make some money, will destroy a government-run market whose only motivation to 'make some money' (aka government money') is to keep the doors open.
Look for yourself. A few clicks will get you the documented Sunfresh story; a few more will get you the details and demographics of the 5 listed areas Mamdani plans for 'government' stores; and you already have the details of Mamdani's announced operations. Add in a few AI questions about the global experience with government-run grocery stores, and you have a data set to base your "bet" on.
The expression 'Same, same.' will probably come to mind. (or maybe the one about walking and quacking like a duck?)
Argue the details, not the ideology.
So, about that bet ...
GA
Which of these took over the market that had failed because of theft and crime? With prices, of course, 30% under other localities NOT plagued with theft rates high enough to close stores?
A British Take on GA’s Thread About New York’s State‑Run Grocery Store Idea
GA’s thread about New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposing state‑run grocery stores caught my attention — not because I know the details of the Kansas City example mentioned, but because it’s rare to see Americans discussing public ownership in anything. From over here, the idea of a state‑run supermarket in the USA stands out immediately.
Speaking as a Brit (and a socialist), the contrast is striking. In America, public ownership tends to be seen through a very ideological lens. In Britain, it’s simply part of how the country works.
We currently have quite a few state‑owned industries and services:
• BBC (public broadcaster)
• Channel 4 (publicly owned)
• NHS (state‑run healthcare)
• Great British Rail (passenger rail brought back into public ownership)
• National Grid ESO (renationalised in 2024)
• Great British Energy (created in 2024)
• British Steel (nationalised in 2026)
And there’s talk of more: water companies, bus services, energy distribution, and possibly Royal Mail.
So public ownership isn’t unusual to us.
But even with all that, we don’t have state‑run grocery stores, and we don’t have a need for them anyway, because we have The Co‑Op.
The Co‑operative Group has been around since 1844, built on democratic ownership and the old Rochdale Principles. Today it runs over 3,160 food stores across the UK. It’s not owned by the government — it’s owned by its members. In practice, it gives us a “people‑owned” alternative to corporate retail without needing the state to run shops directly.
Here’s the advert that captures how the Co‑op sees itself:
Owned by you. Right by you: https://youtu.be/pva5UfbfZ9o
Because of that long history, the idea of a government‑run supermarket feels a bit redundant here. If someone in Britain suggested nationalising Tesco or Sainsbury’s, most people would say: “Why? We already have the Co‑op.”
That’s why GA’s thread stood out to me.
Not because I think Mamdani’s idea can’t work — if he can make it succeed, good luck to him — but because the whole concept is so unusual in an American context, yet oddly familiar in a British one. We’re used to public ownership, just not in retail, because our co‑operative movement filled that space long ago.
Thanks to GA for raising an interesting topic — it’s always enlightening to see how differently these things land across the pond.You are right that most Americans don't share your enthusiasm for government-run 'businesses.' But co-ops are a different mechanism and are supported by most Americans.
Mayor Mamdani's plan is not a co-op plan; it is a small-scale equivalent to your 'nationalizations': government-owned and operated. MyEsoteric's co-op comparison was misdirected.
The details make the difference: In a competitive market, successful grocers operate on a 1% - 3% net profit margin. (I bet food co-ops operate on a similar margin—symbolically)
A very simplistic illustration of retail sales in America uses a '3x' cost-pricing formula. If it costs $1 wholesale, it's priced at $3 retail. $1 product cost + $1 labor costs +$1 operations costs (rent, etc.) = $3 price. (*dollar figures represent percentages, 33% + 33% + 33% = 100% (it's new math LOL)) Profit comes from (mostly) managing labor and operations costs. For most profitable American grocery stores, price competition results in a 1- to 3-cent profit per dollar of sales.
So if it costs a dollar to buy, it will cost a grocer $1.97 to sell to the customer. Still simplistically speaking: Each item of retail theft costs the grocer the profit from 33 other sales
That is just the starting point for problems with Mamdani's state-run grocery stores. The 30% price cuts (especially on meats) won't come from cost savings; they will come from subsidized operations.
Etc. etc. etc., his plan is emotionally enticing (help feed the poor) but doomed by the details of the reality of capitalism* and human nature.
*to illustrate that "capitalism" is a detail of the problem—not a cause of it, ask your chatbot of choice which countries have or had state-run grocery stores. It's not a list you want to be on.
The problem of urban food deserts is real; Mamdani's solution is not. Criticism of the plan is not political or ideological; it's structural.
GAA British Look at the Structural Differences Behind Mamdani’s Grocery Store Idea
GA — I really appreciated your reply, especially the way you framed the issue as structural rather than ideological. That’s exactly the right lens. What struck me, reading your post, is how differently the structure of food retail works over here. The margins may be similar, but almost everything else diverges.
We don’t have urban food deserts in Britain
When you mentioned food deserts in your reply, GA, I actually had to Google the term — it’s not something we really have over here. In the UK, supermarkets are built inside communities rather than miles away from them. Most people live within a short walk of a supermarket, and virtually everyone has a corner shop nearby for everyday basics like milk, bread, and eggs. Public transport fills the gaps, and online delivery is widespread.
So the access problem Mamdani is trying to solve simply isn’t part of our structure.
Competition works differently too
You mentioned the 1–3% net margin — and yes, that’s identical here. But the competitive landscape is not. Britain has seventeen major supermarket chains, all fighting for market share. Aldi and Lidl keep relentless pressure on prices, and Tesco and Sainsbury’s respond with price‑matching.
The result is a continual price war on staples. Fresh food is kept cheap, margins are kept tiny, and supermarkets compete on price rather than convenience.
That’s the opposite of the American model
Your “3× formula” is a neat way of illustrating the American cost structure, but the retail behaviour behind it is where the big difference lies. In the USA, fresh food carries high markups — often 40–100% — because supermarkets need that margin to offset the very low markups (sometimes zero or negative) on junk food. Ultra‑processed foods are subsidised, mass‑produced, and used as loss‑leaders.
So US supermarkets end up with expensive fresh food, cheap junk food, and razor‑thin margins once labour, insurance, rent, and healthcare costs are added in.
In Britain, it’s the reverse.
Fresh food is priced aggressively because of competition, junk food isn’t subsidised, and supermarkets don’t rely on loyalty‑card discounting to the same extent. So even though our underlying costs aren’t dramatically different, the retail prices diverge sharply.
The social side looks different as well
Even with all that competition, the cost‑of‑living crisis has made food banks more important here in recent years. But supermarkets play a major role in supporting them.
Across the UK, supermarkets donate roughly 180–200 million meals’ worth of surplus food each year. Tesco alone donated 88 million meals last year. In Bristol, where I live, local supermarkets contributed to around five million redistributed meals through FareShare South West.
If anyone wants a sense of what that looks like on the ground, FareShare South West recently put out a short video showing how surplus food from farmers, supermarkets, and producers becomes a lifeline for food banks, community groups, breakfast clubs, and schools across the region. It’s a good snapshot of how the system works in practice — volunteers driving vans, picking and packing orders, and keeping thousands of families supplied with good‑quality food for several days at a time.
https://youtu.be/UvqaTi2NJac
It’s a large, organised system — and it means that “feeding the poor” isn’t something that requires municipal grocery stores here.
Which brings me back to Mamdani’s plan
From a British perspective, the idea of a state‑run grocery store feels unusual mainly because our structure doesn’t create the problem he’s trying to solve. We don’t have food deserts, we don’t have long‑distance access barriers, and we don’t have a supermarket culture built around high markups on fresh food.
So the UK doesn’t need municipal grocery stores — not because of ideology, but because the structure already covers the gaps.
Your point that the criticism of Mamdani’s plan is structural rather than political is exactly right. The American retail environment — high operating costs, high shrinkage, high markups, subsidised junk food, and food‑desert geography — makes a 30% discount model inherently dependent on subsidies and vulnerable to the problems Kansas City ran into.
It’s fascinating how two countries with similar supermarket margins end up with such different retail realities once geography, competition, and culture are factored in.
GA — thanks again for the thoughtful exchange. It’s always interesting to compare how these things land on opposite sides of the pond.It does seem fair to say Americans have a problem with ultraprocessed and junk food. Our obesity numbers (and the public acceptance/normalization of them) are both telling and embarrassing.
Regarding food deserts ... the most common scenario is that of a low-income/high crime urban area. That is the problem Mamdani has. Rural 'food deserts' are real, but their primary cause is typically low population density.
GAGA — I think you’ve put your finger on the key distinction. The American issue with ultra‑processed food is real, and the way it’s normalised in everyday retail behaviour is something we simply don’t see to the same extent over here. The obesity numbers speak for themselves.
On food deserts, the structural contrast is stark. In Britain, supermarkets and corner shops are built inside communities — usually within walking distance, and almost always reachable by public transport. Even small villages have a local shop, and online delivery fills any remaining gaps. So the access barrier Mamdani is trying to solve simply doesn’t exist in our system. In the USA, by contrast, supermarkets often withdraw from low‑income urban areas, and rural counties are so large that a “desert” can form naturally. In the USA, people frequently have to drive long distances for basic grocery shopping, which makes car‑dependency part of the structure. It’s a very different geography.
Rural food deserts are another area where the two countries diverge. In the USA, they’re a recognised problem because of sheer scale — vast counties, low population density, and long travel distances. In Britain, the settlement pattern is much denser. Villages of even 500–1,000 people almost always sustain a shop — often alongside a pub and a post office — and even the smallest hamlets (literally just a few houses — often 3–5 homes, a dozen people at most) are only a couple of miles from one. Public transport and delivery cover the gaps. So while rural food deserts make sense in the American context, they simply don’t emerge here.
A small side note that illustrates the difference: UK supermarkets almost always have large car parks, and many now include EV charging points. Some offer slow chargers that are free while you shop, and the bigger chains increasingly provide paid fast chargers as well — enough that by the time you’ve finished your shop, your car is fully topped up. It’s a small detail, but it shows how embedded supermarkets are in everyday local infrastructure here.
That’s why Mamdani’s plan feels unusual from a British perspective. The structural gaps he’s trying to fill simply aren’t present here, whereas they clearly are in parts of the USA. Same supermarket margins, but very different retail realities once geography, transport, crime, and food culture are factored in.
Thanks again for the thoughtful exchange — it’s been interesting to compare how differently the same problem manifests on opposite sides of the pond.I believe that a part of the difference is that this side of the pond shops differently, and maintains differently.
I grocery shop once a month, with perhaps another visit for milk of other perishable items. But the vast majority of the shopping is done in one trip. This may have started when I did live in a very small community without a large grocery market, but for whatever reason it continues to this day. I also have the resources to keep those groceries; a large refrigerator, a freezer and a dedicated pantry with additional storage in the garage. This are things that I don't think are seen in your neck of the woods; my refrigerator is probably twice the size of the normal one there and I get the impression that my freezer (the size of most refrigerators) is uncommon as well.
Secondly, Mamdani doesn't have the problem of rural deserts, or of lack of transportation. His only real problem is crime - even the cost of food is virtually nonexistent as most of the people participating in his "problem" are on government subsidies, getting their basic needs met by government.You do an excellent job of regurgitating conservative propaganda. Unfortunately, without data being presented, or logic for that matter, it is simply a case presenting your prejudices.
To restate the obvious:
“Crime may be one operating cost, but it is plainly not Mamdani’s ‘only real problem.’ New York’s food-access problem also involves rent, store location, neighborhood purchasing power, transportation within the city, supermarket density, labor costs, financing, and the simple fact that low-income residents often pay more for food because they rely on smaller stores with less purchasing power and fewer choices. USDA’s own food-access framework is built around income and access, not crime. It measures things like distance to a supermarket, vehicle access and transportation barriers. Crime is not what defines a food desert.
And the claim that food cost is ‘virtually nonexistent’ because poor residents receive government assistance badly misunderstands how those programs work. SNAP does not make groceries free. Benefits are limited, vary by household, and frequently do not cover a full month’s food needs. USDA’s own research has repeatedly found that many SNAP households exhaust a large share of their benefits well before the end of the month. A family can receive food assistance and still face very real affordability problems.
Nor does New York’s density eliminate access problems. A person may technically live within a mile of a supermarket and still face a meaningful barrier if the nearest affordable full-service store requires multiple bus transfers, carrying groceries several blocks, navigating stairs, or shopping in a neighborhood where smaller stores charge substantially more. ‘There is public transportation’ is not the same thing as ‘there is convenient, affordable grocery access.’
The Kansas City case does show that crime and security can become severe enough to damage one particular store. Spending $5,000–$6,000 a week on security is extraordinary and should not be dismissed. But that proves crime mattered at that store, not that crime is generally the reason urban food deserts exist. To make that larger claim, you would need evidence showing that supermarket closures in New York’s underserved neighborhoods were primarily caused by theft and security costs rather than rent, margins, sales volume, competition, logistics and other operating pressures.
So the real question is not ‘Can Mamdani defeat crime?’ It is: Are there neighborhoods with enough demand to sustain a grocery store if the city reduces some of the costs or risks that keep private operators away? If the answer is yes, then a subsidy may bridge a market gap. If the answer is no, the stores may become permanent money-losers. That is the economic test.”
It looks like the "desert" part of 'food desert' needs some tweaking. In general, both in language usage and in physical locations, the 'desert' part refers to a lack of large grocery stores (also with large parking lots) with larger selections and discounted prices (lower than those at convenience stores or bodegas) for fresh food, not a desert with no food selection.
Convenience stores with ultra-processed foods, and bodegas with pantry staples and convenience foods pop up everywhere—even in Mamdani's targeted neighborhoods.
What the 'desert' part really means is no place to buy household groceries. Which our obesity stats prove is a big deal.
Another point to add is the reality of the ugliness of most
urban ('all' wouldn't be too wrong) low-income areas. They are not the small communities or villages in your commentary.
Their portrayal (urban 'communities') as 'places you don't walk after dark' is more reality than Hollywood licence (or bleeding hearts want to admit). There may be a lot of good folks in such a community, but they don't 'walk to the store' after dark either.
That was pretty dark, but with the dilution of degrees in further conversations, it's a more truthful picture of the areas being discussed for Momdani's planned stores. Add in the good folks you might see in daylight and an understanding of the multiplier effect of a few bad apples (more charitable than listing the gangs), and you can see neighborhoods worth saving. But not with this state-run grocery store idea.
GA
Reception of Mamdami grocery store plan has been mostly negative. Offering free rent and no property taxes may well not be enough beyond tax payer subsidy to make this work.The threat to traditional retail outlets will be there even though Mamdami is talking about basic staples. Could it work for a smaller segment of store inventory? Basic staples? I will do whatever i can to kick the oligarchy in the head, but this upon close examination may not be the way
Maybe if access to the stores requires membership that is based on a member income “not to exceed”principles?Yep, his plan is such a bad idea that it doesn't need any political spin to highlight its problems. Plus, his staff and spokesfolks' statements made things worse.
This is one example: a reporter asked about concerns that someone might try to use the 30% discount for arbitrage instead of food. A staffer replied with something about a "library card-esque' store card or ID card, which led to social media comments and extrapolations about government ID cards, which led to more news-cycle confusion and clarifications about whether the plan was a program with government ID cards for government food from a government store, and ... you can imagine how that went over.
Your 'membership idea ... yep, it went over like a lead balloon. LOL
GA“The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.”
FDR, 1932
There is the challenge against the same pedantic, hidebound attitude associated with conservative thinking. So, let Mamdami attempt, through moderation and adjustment he may well make some headway, the capitalists and aristocrats will resist on principle. But, I don’t care what they think, they are more than happy to retain their advantages in a system whose fairness I have always questioned. So, if Mamdami fails dismally, you are vindicated. But, I am willing to wait and see what he can do.
Conservatives never have problems with Government ID cards as long as they can use them to intimidate voters. So, what is the problem here? I have to have a card to use either Costco or Sams stores. The idea of “means testing” is not a novel one, it is used everyday. I can’t use VA medical facilities because of it. The objections, if any, are primarily superficial.
I say to Mamdami to ignore rightwing chattering and PRESS ON…..
So, is it really all “doom and gloom”, GA?
https://inequality.org/article/how-city … nsecurity/It's all doom and gloom now. After all my effort to focus on one particular non-political point, it still failed. You still have nothing but political mantra garbage as an answer.
It's damn disappointing, Cred. Look at your words. None of them apply to the point of this thread. There was nothing political or ideological about the topic (you said as much yourself in previously describing the plan as 'possibly a bad idea').
Now all you have to offer is: "pedantic, hidebound attitude associated with conservative thinking." —there was none of that in the OP, or afterwards.
... and "the capitalists and aristocrats will resist on principle" — where were they in this conversation before you interjected them?
... and "they are more than happy to retain their advantages in a system" what advantages do "they" have in Mamdani's low-income target areas?
... and "Conservatives never have problems with Government ID cards as long as they can use them to intimidate voters." Oops, the story that related the reporter's question about ID cards wasn't from a conservative source or mouthpiece. You've made an assumption. You should have checked the story.
... and on and on you drone. Not about the topic, but about the mantra of your returned audience.
Yep bud, your reply did bring me a doom and gloom mood. I had other expectations.
GAIt is non political, what is your objection to the attempt? As usual, you listen only to what you want to hear. There is no certain outcome of failure that you seem to be alluding to….
The people in New York voted this man in for a reason, is that to be ignored because you think that you know better?I'm not "alluding"; I'm predicting. Get it right.
I'm predicting that the currently known facts indicate a strong likelihood of failure.
I'm predicting that that failure will have nothing to do with politics or ideologies. It will fail for the same reasons Sun Fresh did.
By "fail," I mean the costs to the city will become too high to keep the store open. Just like the Sun Fresh example.
I don't think I know better. Why do you feel the need to throw that barb/insult into the mix? What's next, I know you are but what am I? Or, 'You're an ugly dodo head.'? Surely your faith isn't so weak that you feel threatened simply because it's challenged?
GA
Food Deserts explained:
USDA's actual framework is revealing. What used to be commonly called a “food desert” is now measured as a low-income, low-access (LILA) area. The factors USDA uses include income, distance from supermarkets, vehicle availability, transportation, and other measures of accessibility. Crime is not part of the definition.
Related Discussions
- 6
Planning For Chicago-owned Grocery Stores
by ga anderson 2 years 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 StoreExploring a municipally owned grocery store is part of...
- 3
Do you buy mint or dandelion greens in a grocery store? Why?
by toomuchmint 14 years ago
Do you buy mint or dandelion greens in a grocery store? Why?
- 9
If you smell something really bad in line at the grocery store, do you comment o
by rutley 14 years ago
If you smell something really bad in line at the grocery store, do you comment or just ignore it?
- 8
Is there any solution to long lines in the grocery store.
by Annie 13 years ago
Is there any solution to long lines in the grocery store.
- 7
Suspicious Behaviour at the Grocery Store; being watchful.
by SandCastles 12 years ago
Another grocery store tale: At the grocery store (in the evening) there was a man and a woman shopping together and I immediately got a bad feeling when they passed me. They walked around the store and didn't seem to be buying anything. Then when I went to the till, they were suddenly behind me....
- 11
Waiting at an amusement park vs. a grocery store.
by Barbara Sloan 13 years ago
Waiting at an amusement park vs. a grocery store.Why are people willing to wait an hour at an amusement park to ride an attraction, but get irritated waiting in line at the grocery store?