And I'm saying that, contra Brainster, if there werf enough paying customers in a neighborhood that a Mamdani-mart can't serve all of them timely enough to prevent hours-long lines, there'd already be a profitable grocery store in that neighborhood, because of all the paying customers there.
But:
So where did he get $140 million? A graphic on the city's website said (at the time) that was how much had been invested in NYC since the program began. The city has since updated the page to make it more clear:
You know these locations are chosen specifically because they are underserved, right?
No, I don't remember things that didn't happen
Ya, that's not how that happened.
You reaallllyyy want those poor people hungry.
I am not even informed enough if food deserts exist as described. Ill have to do a deep dive at some point to see what the specific model of it claims and if it is accurate.
Household of 6 with 2 teenagers, although to be fair the little ones would use half that budget on berries if allowed. Would average out to 2$ a meal per person or so plus snacks, which doesnt seem lavish to me.
Amazon bad. Progressive people wouldn't even dream of going near any of their products...ever.
People in the immediate area were not so keen on the project.
From a 2025 report by CUNY, Yes, food deserts exist in New York City, affecting more than two dozen low-income neighborhoods—particularly in parts of the Bronx, Brooklyn, Harlem, and Staten Island. Residents in these areas face limited access to large supermarkets and fresh produce, forcing a heavy reliance on corner bodegas and fast food
There are instances of true food deserts; usually the result of crime. But the discussion here isn't really using that measure, I think. If you look at the link ZiprHead posted it defines a food desert as an area where there is little access to "nutritious" food. And that's where it gets kind of silly. There is an apparent assumption that people in these areas want "nutritious" food, and that the lack of "nutritious" options has nothing to do with market demand. When a new supermarket opened in the Bronx, thanks to tax incentives, it did not change consumer behavior. There was no increase in vegetable or healthy food consumption. The Introduction of a Supermarket via Tax-Credits in a Low-Income Area: The Influence on Purchasing and Consumption
Yes. My thesis is that they're underserved because there's not enough paying customers there to justify opening a for-profit grocery store there, let alone enough paying customers to create intolerably long lines and wait times. From there, it follows that Brainster's concern about long lines an d wait times at these stores is probably baseless. Which is what I'm saying.
Food preferences start to be established before birth, early years are the critical period to set lifelong food preferences. Miss those years and it is very hard to change preferences. (And that is without dealing with multi-generational epigenetic effects.)
There are other issues, energy poverty, can they afford to cook? Do have access to a stove, pans, utensils, a fridge. Microwaves can seem the cheap cooking option they are cheap and cook quickly. Do they know how to make simple nutritious meals? If your power has been cut off, take out food may be your only option, along with bread and biscuits.
Yep. That's why I mentioned the idea of food kits earlier. It takes a lot more than only lower prices if you want to help people improve their eating habits.
Also time. If you can't afford a car or otherwise can't drive. You're likely to be relying on public transport. The jobs you can take will be more geographically limited, and the commute is likely to be more unreliable and take longer when you include timetables. You are going to have to shop for food more frequently because you can't carry so much home on the bus and anyway, there's a big difference between coming home from a 12 hour shift on public transport when you don't have a proper cooker and coming home from 8 hours in the office to a well stocked kitchen
I can imagine the nightmare of delivering food in the poor areas of any big city.
That has nothing at all to do with the assertion I'm responding to, nor to the subtle-yet-accurate point I'm making.
I think there's another potential reason that you're not considering.
Alternatively... maybe we shouldn't pack people in like rats in a way that makes it near impossible for services to be provide in a reasonable distance? Aim for more moderate apartment buildings, with only 3 or 4 floors at the most, spread out enough to place important services within a reasonable distance.
