Zohran Mamdani

[Emily's Cat]

"I know I'm getting extremely cynical in my old age... but this really sounds like a great recipe for creating a subclass of people who are completely dependent on the government and essentially captives. They can't afford the basics, and they can't afford to move away, they're completely subject to the local government to keep them alive."

And for the record, it wasn't just you.

I think perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought, or you misread, or missed context, or in some other fashion the message got missed.

In the context of this thread, the discussion has focused around low income urban residents, and the lack of accessible full-spread grocery stores. Then there were a couple of posts lamenting the lack of stoves and fridges and pots and pans, ... and the limitations of public transportation and only being able to buy what you can carry which means a lot more trips to the store. All of that was presented as support for city-run grocery stores.

To me... it kind of seems like treating the symptom in a way that absolutely does not address the cause at all. Address the fact that there's a group of people who are locked into a small geographic footprint, locked into small armloads of goods, locked into not being able to store or plan ahead efficiently - not due to a lack of intelligence or capability, but by a system that has created those very barriers. To then look to the government to give them access to food in their still-minimal geography seems unkind. That doesn't seem like it addresses the fact that they're essentially tied to a location and unable to live with the degree of freedom I think all people ought to have.

What about that is incorrect? Do you think that the transportation barrier, the lack of access to reliabletransportation that would allow shopping further away and buying in large enough quantities to plan ahead and free up time is something I've invented out of thin air?

 

[kookbreaker]

I think perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought, or you misread, or missed context, or in some other fashion the message got missed.

In the context of this thread, the discussion has focused around low income urban residents, and the lack of accessible full-spread grocery stores. Then there were a couple of posts lamenting the lack of stoves and fridges and pots and pans, ... and the limitations of public transportation and only being able to buy what you can carry which means a lot more trips to the store. All of that was presented as support for city-run grocery stores.

To me... it kind of seems like treating the symptom in a way that absolutely does not address the cause at all. Address the fact that there's a group of people who are locked into a small geographic footprint, locked into small armloads of goods, locked into not being able to store or plan ahead efficiently - not due to a lack of intelligence or capability, but by a system that has created those very barriers. To then look to the government to give them access to food in their still-minimal geography seems unkind. That doesn't seem like it addresses the fact that they're essentially tied to a location and unable to live with the degree of freedom I think all people ought to have.

What about that is incorrect? Do you think that the transportation barrier, the lack of access to reliabletransportation that would allow shopping further away and buying in large enough quantities to plan ahead and free up time is something I've invented out of thin air?

Maybe you are right about the system, but acting like giving them a store to shop in makes things worse seems disingenuous. It seems like at least a solid step for the neighborhood's livability.

Also, perhaps you don't understand that for many cities in the US public transportation is funded based on approval by the state that city is in. Many states are actively hostile to to those cities and refuse funding and expansion of public transportation. This is our reality. Believe me, I'd like to change that but until you can change how people in the state past the suburbs absolutely loathe the idea that the city might get a nickel you're barking up the wrong tree.

Like I said, it wasn't just about you.

We've had people on this thread claiming that food deserts exist only because corporations fear crime. That is nonsense.
We've had people on this thread claim that if there was a demand for supermarkets in the actual food desert then the free market would have filled it by default.
We've had people acting like food deserts can only exist in poor neighborhoods.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Maybe you are right about the system, but acting like giving them a store to shop in makes things worse seems disingenuous. It seems like at least a solid step for the neighborhood's livability.

You seem to think I said something to that effect?

At present, I haven't really got much opinion. I think having a real grocery accessible is a good thing... I am skeptical about whether a government-run grocery store will work out the way it's envisioned or not.

Also, perhaps you don't understand that for many cities in the US public transportation is funded based on approval by the state that city is in. Many states are actively hostile to to those cities and refuse funding and expansion of public transportation. This is our reality. Believe me, I'd like to change that but until you can change how people in the state past the suburbs absolutely loathe the idea that the city might get a nickel you're barking up the wrong tree.

Like I said, it wasn't just about you.

We've had people on this thread claiming that food deserts exist only because corporations fear crime. That is nonsense.
We've had people on this thread claim that if there was a demand for supermarkets in the actual food desert then the free market would have filled it by default.
We've had people acting like food deserts can only exist in poor neighborhoods.

All of those are contributors to food deserts though. And realistically, they definitely are more associated with poor neighborhoods than wealthy ones. I mean, maybe there's some hypothetical under which a food desert occurs in a middle class suburban area, but I'm having trouble getting there. Where we've actually seen them tend to be either densely populated low-income urban areas, or they're low-income rural/frontier areas. Aside from all the other elements that contribute to them, the one dominant thread throughout is income.

I suppose if you want to get really technical and use some distance equation, you'll find some very well-to-do exurbs our there that meet the definition... but nobody is complaining, because all those horse-ranch owning wealthy folks can just hop in their G-Wagon and head into the city to stock up on their ribeyes and lobster tails.

 

[kookbreaker]

You seem to think I said something to that effect?

At present, I haven't really got much opinion. I think having a real grocery accessible is a good thing... I am skeptical about whether a government-run grocery store will work out the way it's envisioned or not.

Fine to be skeptical. I personally think that it is worth a try.

All of those are contributors to food deserts though.

Saying it is exclusively due to crime is utterly wrong.

And realistically, they definitely are more associated with poor neighborhoods than wealthy ones.

More associated, but the fact is that food deserts are more problematic in poor neighborhoods.

I live in Philadelphia: Rittenhouse, Logan Circle, Fairmount, Olde City, Society Hill - these are the wealthiest of neighborhoods in Philadelphia and through much of the 70's, 80's and 90's all of them except Society Hill were effectively food deserts. Heck most of them could still be considered food deserts if you reject Trader Joe's and Whole Foods as being proper supermarkets.

However wealthier neighborhoods people are more likely to have cars, or these days are happy to pay for Uber rides. So it is less of a problem. But it does not mean you are in the clear in those neighborhoods.

I mean, maybe there's some hypothetical under which a food desert occurs in a middle class suburban area, but I'm having trouble getting there. Where we've actually seen them tend to be either densely populated low-income urban areas, or they're low-income rural/frontier areas. Aside from all the other elements that contribute to them, the one dominant thread throughout is income.

I suppose if you want to get really technical and use some distance equation, you'll find some very well-to-do exurbs our there that meet the definition... but nobody is complaining, because all those horse-ranch owning wealthy folks can just hop in their G-Wagon and head into the city to stock up on their ribeyes and lobster tails.

Once you live past a certain distance away from a city not having a car isn't an option. I've known plenty of folks who live in satellite towns who can get away with not having a car but a few more towns out and it doesn't really work very well.

 

[mumblethrax]

All of that was presented as support for city-run grocery stores.

No it wasn't.

It was presented as a counterargument to critiques of a city-owned (not city-run) store from people who don't seem to realize how grocery shopping works in a city where only 45% of households own a car.

What about that is incorrect?Do you think that the transportation barrier, the lack of access to reliabletransportation that would allow shopping further away and buying in large enough quantities to plan ahead and free up time is something I've invented out of thin air?

The "transportation barrier" that prevents people from doing suburban-style grocery runs is not owning a car, in a city where owning a car is expensive (and usually a major hassle). That's not a problem you're going to solve without making the cost of living in the city higher, and the quality of life lower.

And "planning ahead" isn't inherently desirable. That's just necessary when you only go to the store every week or two, because it's out of the way. I can stop at the store on my way back from the subway after work, grab whatever I need for dinner that night, and I like it that way. This is one of the advantages of city living, not a problem to be solved. The problem is that some people can't do this, because the store isn't there.

 

[jimbob]

High density urban housing necessarily creates a need for more and more services (including groceries) closer together. So until we get self-contained arcologies with the grocer on floor 3, there's going to be problems.

That's such a North American idea.

After studying for a year in Ontario, my daughter told me that she was "looking forward to having towns and cities that are functional and have a real centre" as opposed to having funny parking lots with some shops or the downtown.

You don't need self contained arcologies. You need to allow mixes of retail and businesses.

Not every type of business, even light industry might be inappropriate, but certainly shops and restaurants/cafes etc.aldo having a centre that is walkable (as in the fifteen minute city Idea).

I live in a small town where I am within walking distance for my everyday requirements (except my particularl job, which is fairly specialised, but where I now work from home a lot). The convenience is one reason why I chose to live here and I did feel fortunate during Covid lockdown.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Are you happy pointing out that I'm not something I never claimed to be? Don't let me get in the way of you slaying that dragon... but please don't damage the windmill in the process - we kind of need it.

I think are fundamentally confused about what certain terms mean.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Tokyo manages to be the biggest city in the world by each Block being basically a village, with all basic necessities contained within.

New York is not inventing something that hasn't been working forever elsewhere

 

[jimbob]

Tokyo manages to be the biggest city in the world by each Block being basically a village, with all basic necessities contained within.

New York is not inventing something that hasn't been working forever elsewhere

I was going to talk about the Low Countries as being some of the most densely populated regions of the world but yes.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

It's something that has always baffled me once I learned of how new US cities are built. Why would you be ok with your houses so far away from any amenities that you NEED to take a car?

In any new dutch (and most EU cities) a new suburb will always have various supermarkets, restaurants and other amenities within walking, biking and Public transport distance.

 

[kookbreaker]

Several GOP reps and many of their right-wing influencers spent the weekend rending their shirts over how the Mamdani supermarkets will require residency ID to shop there. Many of them of course ranted and raved over how you would need to show ID to shop there but not need ID to vote.

Needless to say, that ID requirement was untrue and based on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Mamdani says no ID needed for city grocery stores, despite criticism

Mayor Zohran Mamdani received backlash from Republicans this week after claims circulated that an ID would be needed for city-owned grocery stores.

www.usatoday.com

 

[plague311]

Several GOP reps and many of their right-wing influencers spent the weekend rending their shirts over how the Mamdani supermarkets will require residency ID to shop there. Many of them of course ranted and raved over how you would need to show ID to shop there but not need ID to vote.

Needless to say, that ID requirement was untrue and based on the flimsiest of pretexts.

Mamdani says no ID needed for city grocery stores, despite criticism

Mayor Zohran Mamdani received backlash from Republicans this week after claims circulated that an ID would be needed for city-owned grocery stores.

www.usatoday.com

You mean the Republicans lied?

 

[Trausti]

Government is often the problem.

Basic economics show why Mamdani’s socialist grocery stores in NYC are destined to fail

In the 1970s, New York City enacted a zoning regulation targeted at protecting the fast-eroding industrial base. The new rule’s purported goal: Keeping big retail stores out of spaces used for manufacturing. The law got strong support, and continues to be championed, by local merchants. “It did nothing to prevent the fall of manufacturing,” says Korbey. “It’s outdated but it remains on the books.” It seems clear that the City Council is reluctant to remove it.


Specifically, the regulation requires that any enterprise looking to build or open a retail store over 10,000 square feet in the extensive areas zoned “M” for “manufacturing” must obtain both a special permit from the City Planning Commission and a yes vote from the 51-member City Council. That’s all retail, including food stores. The M zones cover such areas as Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn, Gowanus and the Red Hook waterfront in Brooklyn, sections of East New York, and such unexpected sections as large swaths of Long Island City and most of Soho.

Many of the M areas have precisely the kind of big spaces, available land and ample parking needed for big box grocery stores. Yet it’s highly unusual for the authorities to approve them and just to get to the point where the City renders a decision is wildly expensive, a barrier that stops most candidates from even trying. As urban policy analyst Stephen Smith noted in an excellent article published in non-profit think tank Vital City, Wegman’s won approval for its store in the Brooklyn Navy Yard only after pledging to build retail and office space that remains unoccupied, and Whole Foods had to cover a parking lot with wind turbines and solar panels to win its spot in Gowanus.

 

[mumblethrax]

Government is often the problem.

Basic economics show why Mamdani’s socialist grocery stores in NYC are destined to fail

I worked right across the street from the site of the Whole Foods in Gowanus for years (and still have some clients there), and the city really wasn't the problem. The cost of building a store there was more to do with the fact that the site was severely polluted from long-term industrial use, and opposition mainly came from residents and artists worried about environmental impact, higher rents and increased traffic. The claim that Whole Food had to install wind and solar power in order to win a variance, meanwhile, is false. That was a voluntary initiative from Whole Foods.

I don't see what this has to do with "socialist" (better understood as subsidized private) grocery stores, though. We don't see a lot of giant box stores in NYC even where they don't need a variance. They're just too expensive and too demanding to make sense in much of the city.

 

[Trausti]

I don't see what this has to do with "socialist" (better understood as subsidized private) grocery stores, though. We don't see a lot of giant box stores in NYC even where they don't need a variance. They're just too expensive and too demanding to make sense in much of the city.

Which is why the city should examine to how regulation/red tape/bureaucracy inhibit the entry of large grocery stores. That would make a lot more sense. If you look at the materials put out by the city, this isn't about "food deserts." I can see from the internets that there are, in fact, many grocery stores in NYC. The excuse being used is that the cost of many groceries has increased and these stores will sell certain items at a 30% discount (paid for by NYC taxpayers). Making it easier for large grocery stores to enter the market would be far more efficient and would spare Mamdani the inevitable embarrassment when the government stores fail.

 

[mumblethrax]

Which is why the city should examine to how regulation/red tape/bureaucracy inhibit the entry of large grocery stores.

This doesn't make sense as a response.

If you look at the materials put out by the city, this isn't about "food deserts." I can see from the internets that there are, in fact, many grocery stores in NYC.

It is about food deserts (among other things). As already mentioned "many grocery stores" in NYC doesn't help people in neighborhoods where there aren't a lot of grocery stores. It's a big city.

The excuse being used is that the cost of many groceries has increased and these stores will sell certain items at a 30% discount (paid for by NYC taxpayers).

That's not an excuse. It's a reason for action.

 

[jimbob]

Government is often the problem.

Basic economics show why Mamdani’s socialist grocery stores in NYC are destined to fail

I am failing to see the connection.

I agree that their planning rules are counterproductive, but is different.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Profit is, in fact, not the only metric for success.

In a Social Market Economy, it's supposed to be a happy side effect

 

[dudalb]

Or maybe the problem is unfixable, NYC has simply become too big to manage.
At times I wonder if the burroughs should not go back to being seperate cities..Brooklyn did not merge with Manhatten until 1900.

 

[dudalb]

I hope it in the plan for the Government owned Grocery Stores to eventually become self supporting.
Tanstaffl is an eternal law....There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.It might be free to you but somebody has got to pay.