News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
It's a bold move, and I want it to work, but I can't see how it does at this point.
One store per borough.
Population estimates as of 2023:
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/planning-level/nyc-population/population-estimates/current-population-estimates-2023-June2024-release.pdf?r=1
Bronx - 1,356,476
Brooklyn - 2,561,225
Manhattan - 1,597,451
Queens - 2,252,196
Staten Island - 490,687
One per borough as a pilot program, to see if it’s feasible to expand.
This is the way it should be done. Instead of spending millions of dollars on a multi-year feasibility study and building hundreds of stores, just build a few and see how it goes.
So, using agile approach here might work?
Only if there are a pair of employees at each store.
I mean, it did say at least one per borough. But, still not as many as we'd like. Maybe if it succeeds on a small scale, it'll be expanded.
I would hope so! I'd think with that kind of population they'd need 10 stores per borough, maybe more.
If the goal is to serve people with larger distances to groceries today, and unmet needs, it's probably not as helpful in wealthier areas like Staten Island. Though surely some people there will benefit.
I can't find easy data on grocery store density, but I'm guessing if the program is as successful as it seems like it should be, dozens of stores across NYC seems like a place they could get quickly. Probably not evenly distributed across boroughs though.
Yeah, with a fraction of the population, I'd be less concerned about Staten Island than the others.
It's a pilot program, like how they tried one free bus per borough. Easier to get past your opposition, and you gather data on if expanding to a program with real impact makes sense. And it makes sense that they don't want to spoil or reveal how big this might get if it starts working, because that's just handing ammo to your opposition. It's exactly how thing like this ought to be done, slowly and scientifically, and in a way that is not so immediately threatening to the status quo that it will get squashed before we can see if it works or not as a solution.
Not everyone will need to go to the city run grocery stores so it’s not 100% of a borough to a to a single store
You have to start somewhere, I guess?
Everything starts somewhere! Hope it works!
Could you expand on your thoughts here? Which part do you see as failing or what your definition of failing for this project?
I'm guessing the original OC is pointing to the enormous customer bases each store would have to service and how inadequate the amount of stores per borough are relative to the amount of customers
The stores aren't supposed to replace the existing stores or serve the whole city population. They're supposed to put some outlets into underserved neighborhoods whose residents now have to subsist on junk food or else use transit for basic groceries.
I haven't looked into the proposal much but this is what I envisioned with the term food deserts.
All areas have bodegas but they don't often have a selection of fresh fruits, vegetables, or food staples.
source: I've lived in NYC.
One store per borough when the populations exceed 1 to 2 million won't achieve the goals of increasing food availability or reducing prices.
If the goal is universal grocery availability at the lowest prices, then I agree: this plan alone won't achieve that. However, I see a couple of factors here with the plan that could achieve some measures of success.
The first is that the plan is to place these stores in, essentially, food deserts in the city. That would have an immediate positive impact on grocery availability for the localities around the 5 stores. Further, the fact that the city stores will be selling at wholesale will mean that food prices at these could be noticeably cheaper. This would steel customers from other grocery stores, forcing them to lower prices to attract their customers back. While grocery stores usually run on small profit margins, that usually is still while having to pay property taxes (which city grocery won't), but land (which city grocery won't), and pay for expensive business operations (marketing, executives, etc) (which city grocery won't).
I'll be the first to say its not a slam dunk win for everyone in the whole city immediately, but the locals around the store benefit immediately, and the success of an alternative without a profit motive puts pricing pressure on existing stores possibly fleecing customers with higher prices.
The plan is targeting areas without grocery stores. The areas will already have bodegas but they typically sell junk food and alcohol.
I'm referring to customers not local to the area that want lower prices and would be willing to travel to get it. In economic terms this is called Price elasticity of supply.
Yeah this was always my issue with it. I can understand the plan to drive down the price of goods with government subsidized competition, but that only works if it's a highly available alternative.
he isn't out to take on the competition to 'drive down' prices, but rather to serve neighborhoods that have no stores..where you have to walk a half hour just to get a carton of milk and a loaf of bread.
Oh, well if that's the primary goal - to eliminate food deserts - then hell yeah. Makes total sense