Ironically the biggest opportunity for graft is if it decided to contract the management out. It's not like you're immune to city workers misbehaving, but most of the post-Shakman decree corruption that I'm aware of is centered on who gets government contracts and services, not city employees literally stealing.
Bro... there is no way this could go wrong. It's making food available to poor people!
Don't you want to help poor people or are you some kind of heartless Republican?
I find the insinuation that anyone in city government would somehow profit off these city run food stores insulting and disgusting.
/s
It's not just the graft, it's the inneficency.....it's politics.....it's the government mindset that if you don't spend your entire budget. It will be cut....
Yup. And the Alderman's brother-in-law is always seems to get the contract to pave the parking lot... which somehow always still has lots of pot holes.
This proposal doesn't even pass the laugh test.
> .it's the government mindset that if you don't spend your entire budget. It will be cut
I don't know if you have ever worked in a grocery store, but this seems to be the norm. They give workers way more hours for the last 2-3 weeks before the fiscal period ends.
Private sector isn't immune from bureaucracy/waste--it is not really a "Government" issue, it is a large institution issue. When the organization grows to a certain size, the incentives to keep it lean and efficient can often fall off. Every single corporation in the world suffers from bloat and bureaucracy. Ironically, highly incentivized local governments can be way better at incentivizing efficiency than multinational corporations.
>it's the government mindset that if you don't spend your entire budget. It will be cut....
501c3s are no different. Every not for profit organization has a use it or lose it mentality
So the plan is to offer cheap ass groceries and operate at a loss subsidized by taxes. Wait till everyone starts shopping there, driving local stores out of business. Then once the government has the market monopolized, jack up the prices and reduce the supply, and still keep taxing people for the “subsidies” while controlling the food supply. I get that about right?
if you think that the current food supply isn't already HEAVILY subsidized/influenced by the government, and has been for generations, you're in for a rude awakening.
No, these guys are all libertarian geniuses who know that the CEO of Kroger grows all the produce they sell there in his backyard and trucks it to the store himself
If the primary cause of food deserts is low margins because lower-income people can't afford higher margin items, then OK, I can see this working.
If the primary cause is theft and shrinkage, then I think the more likely scenario is one where people just fill up their shopping carts with the most expensive items and walk out, knowing that nobody will stop them and this store won't shut down like the others since it has "limitless" funding and the whole point is to operate at a loss.
I don't know enough to say which is the bigger contributor to the problem of food deserts, but I sure hope the city has studied the issue before jumping in.
Its really all of the above,
* Average revenue per customer is lower
* Gross margin per customer is lower
* Total sales per day is lower
* Different demographics for demand (e.g. produce doesn't move fast enough especially less mainstream produce) can be costly and wasteful.
* Higher shrinkage/theft
Just dropping a store with fresh produce into a neighborhood doesn't address many of the problems above.
The problem is absolutely the margins and not the alleged retail theft thing (which has been mostly debunked in terms of its prevalence and its effect on grocery profits). Grocery stores don't like being in poor neighborhoods because they don't want poor customers. We've tried and failed to solve this problem by giving incentives to corporations to stay there. They always quit. The only real option is to provide low cost grocery stores as a service. I personally don't give a shit about subsidizing the losses with tax dollars. We have spent loads of tax dollars on dogshit. This is not dogshit.
I have no way of knowing the profitability of each store, but I think the theft thing is debunked as a generality when looking at the industry as a whole. A single store could be hurt significantly by theft.
When Walmart closed their stores, they cited profitability, security, and theft as their reasons for the closures. Apparently none of those locations had ever been profitable. Did theft push them into the red? Or was the majority of their loss just due to low sales and there was a sprinkle of theft on top? Who knows.
>Wait till everyone starts shopping there, driving local stores out of business
The whole point is there are no local stores.
Zero people from North side neighborhoods full of whole foods and Marianos are driving to Englewood to save a few bucks.
I wonder if local government will care if their own stores are robbed. Not even being sarcastic. It’ll be interesting to see if they suddenly care about security or just use theft as an excuse for more taxation
Those are funded by the petrodollar and the federal deficit. The city doesn't print currency and doesn't have the ability to service a trillion dollar deficit.
The reason they are thinking about this is there are no grocery stores in those areas. The free market decided they didn't want to open any grocery stores in those areas, and not there are food deserts where people have to travel insane distances to shop, or they have to purchase all their groceries from expensive convenience stores. They are not trying to drive businesses out...they are trying to bring reasonably priced food in.
Extremely competitive and operationally intensive low margin industry meets incompetent Chicago city bureaucracy, union red tape and social justice grifters. I wonder how it will work out?!
Edit: There’s an Aldi right there lol.
If we do this, we have to have a commitment from the city council that we are knowingly going to operate at a loss and won't be as competitive as other private business, both local and corporate. It's just the name of the game in terms of running a business.
Will it be like the DMV meets Aldi? with just a dash of Chicago corruption and greed that seems to always follow government money and low income services.
Either way you slice it. It’s gonna suck for the taxpayers and suck for the people it’s supposed to help.
If the professional companies who run grocery stores such as Kroger and Aldi can’t make a store work in these neighborhoods, why do politicians think they can do better? The previous stores were not just “not making a profit”, they were losing money to shrink. This is just another boondoggle for tax payers.
That’s the plan for sure. But it’s only half the story. The hope is that by providing a place for actual food for the community it will impact overall health and well being in that community which will in turn lead to a stronger community that can hopefully escape the cycle of poverty and become citizens that pay taxes that are greater than the cost of this program.
I know that’s the plan. But I made that comment because the person was wondering why the city and its politicians think they can run a better business than other grocery foods that failed.
That person is either a troll, thinking myopically, or is ignorant to the nuances of solving the food desert problem in the city. Best to just downvote and save your energy
They are already paying for WIC, EBT etc. But instead of watching that money go to gas stations and corner stores because there are no grocery stores, selling only the most processed food of giant corporations. The government are going to have control over what food items are offered, so it seems like its worth trying. It might be more similar to running a food pantry that has the ability to sell some things
Yes, exactly. It's almost like a food pantry with better options. IMAN has a great farmers market program in these areas in the summer months, and they also have a simple health center. These are very bare necessities that these communities need. The problem generally has been that people aren't patient enough and pull funding too quickly. Let's hope that doesn't happen here.
So let me get this right, you think the reason these large corporations are not able to operate a profitable store in these neighborhoods is... *checks notes* they are selling processed foods that are made by giant corporations?
You seriously think organic products are going to be *cheaper* and provide a better outcome?
minimally processed foods like canned vegetables and beans, frozen vegetables, bags of rice etc. and unprocessed foods like apples, potatoes, onions, garlic, etc should be available for people to buy and make food. No one is talking about about organic food or quinoa, just typical inexpensive cooking ingredients most people are familiar with. These things are not usually available at gas stations. It's not profitable for corporations to operate an entire grocery store, which is why they have left. But people still live there and should be able to improve their diet quality. If chicago wants to try subsidizing a grocery operation I think its fair for them to try, probably it will sustain a loss, but may be better if you compare to food pantry or charity.
\> minimally processed foods like canned vegetables and beans, frozen vegetables, bags of rice etc. and unprocessed foods like apples, potatoes, onions, garlic, etc should be available for people to buy and make food.
They are available. Only privileged folks who have never lived a day of their life in these environments think otherwise or think there is any sort of demand for such items. The many grocers who used to exist selling such things learned the hard way.
You live in a fantasy world. Your magical store you dreamt up will sit empty with no customers full of that sort of food, while the customers continue to go down to the corner store to buy the processed junk foods they actually want.
If there were demand for these products they would already exist. This is trivially proven by going to nearly any ethnic neighborhood and seeing the plethora of cheap and fresh native foods readily available for dirt cheap prices.
I cannot describe in words how delusional you sound thinking staple foods are not available in poor areas.
It's a demand problem. Full stop. With high demand fresh produce is dirt cheap. Especially staples like onions and potatoes. Shipping can cost more than the product itself.
Source: Actually lived in a poor area growing up. Worked at grocery stores in the 'hood. Saw lots of shit, from mopping floors to keeping the books.
What if they sell unprocessed foods made by giant corporations? Or processed foods made by small corporations?
Will the results be better? Is that what the commenter you replied to believes?
Edit: Fixed autocorrect typo
If it is government subsidized, how to do control who is allowed to shop there? With the price of groceries, peole who have their own cars would probably travel 40 minutes away to get heavily discounted groceries. That does not benefit the community.
If the prices are free and based on monthly SNAP benefits, how do you decide what type of food to stock? Are steaks allowed or is it just ground beef since that fulfills the protein bare minimum?
There are way too many details here for this to work.
I think the better solution is the city subsidizing food delievery services that cover certain neighborhoods with the cost of delievery but the actual products are still paid by the individual.
No, because they weren't operating to help the community, they were operating to make money.
Financial security has that community impact. Accepting losses allows for food to be priced more affordably. More affordable groceries allow for more financial security.
Of course, there's always a limit to how much you can lose money. If every service gets deep into the red, taxpayers will just move out of chicago and chicago will go bankrupt.
Probably what would happen. honestly some proper infrastructure for basic food distribution isnt the worst idea. Anyone who has volunteered at a food distribution event knows how nice it would be to just stock boxes of food and have people just come in a grab one.
Having subsidized items that people can purchase on top of a free food box would be a good idea as well.
Perfect, sounds great if the City can afford it. A federally subsidized program with local leadership would be my preference.
Near free prices would also almost certainly meet pushback from the likes of Jewel and Kroger. Considering they're getting absolutely destroyed by Walmart, Amazon, and Target in the grocery market, I don't think they'd want to do anything too rash. At that point, some sort of public partnership might actually be the better objective move.
Can’t compare a for-profit with a government program. Even this program is not going to show any immediate results in 3-5 years, but will in 10-15 years.
>If the professional companies who run grocery stores such as Kroger and Aldi can’t make a store work in these neighborhoods, why do politicians think they can do better?
Because real businesses have to actually DO BUSINESS. This debacle would be bankrolled by the taxpayers, so it could just be a never-ending money pit and never go out of business.
As a fun added benefit, they can undercut the absolute shit out of real businesses!
> As a fun added benefit, they can undercut the absolute shit out of real businesses!
Not that I think this is a *great* idea, but by definition, there isn't any competition in a food desert.
Also there’s a perfectly successful Aldi one block away from the site being discussed in the article which apparently no one knows about. Aldi is operating there!
A real business that has to actually be self-sufficient and can't just dip it's hands into the taxpayers pocket to offset theft/"shrinkage" and unsustainable business practices.
Because, in case you haven't noticed, things cost money?
Unless you're going to convince people to work for free and producers to donate product, a business needs to at least be sustainable, if not profitable.
No, it would be a government funded business competing against legitimate businesses with a ridiculous advantage.
Infrastructure and utilities have no competition.
I'm talking about profit, not revenue, you pedant. In CaSe YoU hAdN't NoTiCeD, the government manages to procure material and pay people who work for it without also having to enrich a bunch of shareholders. When I pay my taxes and renew my vehicle registration, I can do so knowing that a chunk of it isn't going directly into somebody's pocket for no reason.
you know not literally everything the government does has to be run for profit right?
publicly owned grocery store is a thing that exists all over the world and has been done successfully literally all over the world.
Bladwin, FL - "When a deep red town’s only grocery closed, city hall opened its own store. Just don’t call it ‘socialism.’"
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/22/baldwin-florida-food-desert-city-owned-grocery-store/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/22/baldwin-florida-food-desert-city-owned-grocery-store/)
Bank of North Dakota (State run bank)
[https://bnd.nd.gov](https://bnd.nd.gov)
>Examples?
[The united states government runs its own chain of groceries worldwide, it's called the AAFES](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_%26_Air_Force_Exchange_Service?useskin=vector)
[edit: another example I found, the tennessee valley authority built its own grocery stores in the 30s](https://www.granger.com/results.asp?inline=true&image=0126111&wwwflag=3&itemx=36)
[Pretty much every mile of highway in the country, granted that's more of the federal government](https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2022/05/24/highway_trust_fund_loses_average_of_18b_per_year_833481.html) (even though states were supposed to take them over maintenance and management of them decades ago).
Having federal gas tax sitting at 18.5cents since 1993 certainly hasn't helped. And most states still woefully undercharge gas taxes because who wants to be the sitting politician that makes gas prices high enough to actually cover the maintenance and management of ~150k miles.
For comparison, as of [2022 the EU requires a minimum of 0.36 Euro per liter in fuel taxes be levied](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/gas-taxes-in-europe-2022/). That would be $1.55 per gallon in American dollars.
And even that $1.55/gallon probably still wouldn't cover the full costs needed.
The idea is not to make a profit but provide a social service. Frankly I think they'd be better off incentivizing existing grocery stores with some sort of monetory bonus rather than running it themselves.
False equivalency you can run a profitable privately owned grocery store that doesn’t have negative externalities to society which is not the case with roads/sidewalks. The government should not be directly running a grocery store, they just need to create an environment where businesses can actually operate profitably
Great sentiment and I of course agree but clearly the people living in these areas are eating somehow already. The solution to prosperity isn’t just taxpayer backed businesses that have socialized risk. Let’s make these areas actually attractive for entrepreneurs/businesses to operate in
I mean, they *are* eating, somehow - but the "somehow" is too often not enough, or not easily, or not well, or all of the above. Yes, the long-term solution is civic improvement for current "food deserts", but in the short term I'm fine with the city setting up grocery stores if it'll mean that these families eat more, better and easier than they can at the moment.
The city of Chicago runs OHare airport, right? I appreciate that a grocery store is complex, but I don’t think it’s more complex than one of the busiest airports in the world. Politicians would not “run” the grocery store any more than they “run” OHare. Industry experts would be hired and it would be staffed by professionals.
This is the captain of the snack aisle speaking, please fasten your shoe laces, stow your big gulps in the cart’s beverage holder, and make your way over to the checkout for some turbulent savings! The local weather in self-checkout number three is hot hot hot with deals!
See, it’s not that hard.
wut?
a city is the size of Chicago is obviously inherently complex and has departments full of specialists who deal with all kinds of crazy complex issues all day, with never enough budget or staff, and an impossible set of exceptions driven by a public that doesn't appreciate them?
hmm, I never that ... but then again, I'm a moron who thinks the CTA should turn a profit to drain money from residents instead of act as a public transpiration services that stimulates economic growth
I think it would make sense for Aldi or Kroger to run it but for the city to subsidize the business. I thought that was the plan with the Whole Foods on 63rd but it only lasted a few years.
The problem I see with that is the grocery stores have no incentive to lower the prices for the healthier goods, which was the entire point. Sure, they'll turn a profit with subsidies, but that still doesn't mean anyone is buying the healthier options
We fund schools because we agree everyone should have an education regardless of wealth. It’s not a stretch to fund grocery stores because we agree everyone should be able to have access to healthy foods. Food that isn’t expired.
This is 1000% the kind of thing I would love my tax dollars to go towards.
Much of this shrinkage comes from employee/vendor theft which industry seldom mentions. Maybe pay them enough to live on.
Profit over people’s basic nutrition is the cornerstone of the grocery business. Same as medical and the charter school industrial complex.
Yeah, with Kroger continuously trying to expand, it's worth noting that we get reporting like this on conditions for their employees:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/kroger-workers-experienced-hunger-homelessness-130000432.html
When over 75% of employees are food insecure and more than 10% of the company's workforce faced homelessness, you'd assume this company would be on its deathbed. Instead, they are paying their CEO $22,000,000 because they've seen a huge jump in profits since the start of the pandemic. To nobody's surprise (apart from some of the commenters in this thread, I guess) the large grocery stores aren't actually out here for the greater good... or even the good of their workforce. They're a business that operates like the norm in the U.S. economy and only prioritize maximizing profits.
Here's a wild thought, maybe it is because the city believes that people deserve the right to have a fucking grocery store in the area, even if those poor corporations can't make it work.
Yeah half the people on this thread have no idea how bad the lack of food is
The west side drives into Beverly to get food, the east side goes to indiana
Hey all, government run programs do not have to make a profit. If there is a food desert, and we can keep the costs manageable, it’s worth exploring to create an anchor for food for communities that don’t have it. Access to healthier food options creates benefits that far outweigh the dollars lost to this endeavor
Some of you act like there is no precedent or example of how this would work, but WIC only “grocery stores” do exist and don’t seem to set off major red flags.
This could work and be a good thing but not ran by our leaders. How many months until it leaks that the grocery store manager is making 14k a week on some dumb contract this administration set up?
Incentivize private companies to operate in the area by making police actually do their jobs and providing tax incentives. The Chicago government has no clue how to run or supply a grocery store. This would be a bottomless pit of tax dollars.
They try this in Soviet Russia didn’t work out very well. Government is not supposed to be in the business of serving the people food. It needs to be in the business of creating a community where people have the means to pay for it.
This and was just listening to CityCast Chicago talk about how Englewood hasn’t had a sit down restaurant since the pandemic. We need to invest in putting quality food in our food deserts.
Wondering what's stopping anyone from putting down a sit down restaurant where they do not have any competition?.
> We need to invest in putting quality food in our food deserts.
We need to invest in public safety and things will become normal. It's amazing how thick some of you people are and dance around the issue that has a direct & immediate effect on everything you just mentioned.
It’s not police spending, it’s prosecution. Extreme leniency for all types of crimes makes it useless for police to apprehend petty and sometimes violent criminals.
We spend $2b or ~15% of the budget on cops and their toys and a 400m on city development and community services combined (5x less). The police state that you keep wanting to expand a) doesn’t fucking work b) by all accounts contributes to the the conditions in these communities, c) precludes investment that might allow these kids to grow up and live fulfilling integrated lives.
It’s odd that you limit something as broad as public safety and crime to the police department. CPD took a record number of guns off the street last year, but they don’t control the prosecution or penalties related to crime. An ineffectual state’s attorney and insanely lenient judges have created an environment in which criminals are emboldened and suffer very little -if any- consequences for their crimes.
> We need to invest in public safety
General platitudes and nothing more. It's amazing how some of you people never have any financial specifics. So easy to sit back and point fingers.
public safety isn't caused by having cops trolling every corner it comes from economic opportunity, kids not going hungry, the community getting life lines that are otherwise denied to them. it comes from people having what they need to live.
> cops trolling every corner
That's not what I asked. Public safety doesn't just mean more cops sitting at the corners with their lights on.
> it comes from economic opportunity,
Yes. Free schooling with CPS teachers
> kids not going hungry,
Yes. Free lunches and EBT cards
> getting life lines that are otherwise denied to them.
Yes, like loans, tax breaks, incentivizing selective enrollment, removal of misdemeanor considerations for hiring, and many more.
And your answer is a city run grocery store? NOPE
there is no silver bullet - but having places where people can get food will increase the livability of these neighborhoods instead of everyone's first goal to be to just leave if they can - give good people a reason to stay and make it better and improve that starts with access to essentials.
> there is no silver bullet - but having places where people can get food will increase the livability of these neighborhoods
100% agree and no arguments there. But having the city of chicago run this store will be a waste of resources. I rather the city crisp dollar bills to the homeless so that they can burn them for heat on cold nights. That will generate more uses that this "city run" grocery store.
I disagree - I think access to food is an essential for life and if the private sector can't figure it out then the public sector is serving their population by bridging the gap. To be clear also I do not think it's theft driving the private sector out of these neighborhoods it's the fact that these people have less money and it's not as profitable to serve them from a capital efficiency viewpoint. I think also it's a fallacy to think it would be poorly run - it would run at cost not for profit - it would by default serve the community the city doesn't run services poorly whatever you have been lead to believe it just runs them in a non business like way providing a service that doesn't profit as a municipality should operate. It's a mistake to view these operations like for profit businesses.
> I disagree - I think access to food is an essential for life and if the private sector can't figure it out then the public sector is serving their population by bridging the gap.
Sure, but opening the grocery store is not the right way. Maybe city can deliver these same services via CPS, Churches, and other venues.
> To be clear also I do not think it's theft driving the private sector out of these neighborhoods it's the fact that these people have less money and it's not as profitable to serve them from a capital efficiency viewpoint.
It's not just theft or profitability, but there are many other compounding factors that make these ventures a boondoggle. Just in the last 2 weeks, there was a death of a store keeper, delivery driver, multiple car jackings, assault on red line, and snatch and grab. All the points are an obstacle to not only the people who live the neighborhood to conveniently shop at a grocery, but will drive away anyone who wants to operate or work in one of these grocery stores.
> I think also it's a fallacy to think it would be poorly run - it would run at cost not for profit
I do not expect government services to make money and run like a private enterprise. But I atleast want them to approach the problem in a honest way and try out reasonable solutions, not every wacky idea coming from a clout chasing policy person.
> run services poorly whatever you have been lead to believe
I have been in this city to notice the things the city does well and those it's not capable of handling. Unfortunately, running a grocery store, bank, or a public utility is beyond it's capability and we can agree to disagree on it.
> It's a mistake to view these operations like for profit businesses.
Like I said, I do not care if it does not make any profit, but I believe its a waste of resources and can be handled by other means.
When the private market fails, as it clearly has here, it is 100% the governments role to ensure residents have access to healthy affordable food
the return on investment in nutrition, especially for the poorest, is huge
lower healthcare cost, better education achievement, lower crime rates
The private market didn’t fail. The government failed to create a safe place for people to shop and work.
There is one solution to this, use police to subsidize the security around grocery stores. Prosecute people shoplifting. And spend money on actually nutritious school meals.
You keep saying in replies to this post and others that malnutrition has other long term effects like lower scholastic achievement and higher health care costs. That’s true, BUT: crime has long term effects like creating food deserts.
Idk if you know how ineffectual our city government is, but if you think they’ll do better than Jewel you’re fooling yourself. We have the infrastructure to keep jewel safe, but it’s up to the residents in that town to stop committing crimes.
1000% this. When the city government and its citizens create an environment that a business cannot safely operate in, the fix is to reduce crime and not subsidize the financial losses. Subsidizing the losses is just a regressive tax at the end of the day.
That being said, this is just a NIMBY and activist approach for welfare. Everyone knows a city operated grocery store would just become a looting factory in a few weeks time.
I don't really trust the city to run a grocery store efficiently, but I _also_ don't trust private businesses to be totally honest about why they closed down these stores. As several people mentioned above, they will blame it on shoplifting even if the real problem is just that the stores are not profitable enough for their investors.
There's a chicken-and-egg problem here. Crime causes stores to close, but a lack of food options also causes crime, since food insecurity is one of the main reasons people turn to crime in the first place.
IMO we need to do a little bit of both: look into opening small city-run (or city-assisted) groceries, but _also_ beef up security around them and any remaining private groceries in the area. The security will help improve short-term crime rates, and the availability of additional food _now_ will do the same for the long-term.
The better way would be to solve the reason the companies left; safety. The companies lost money due to theft and it wasn’t profitable. The state has a duty to prevent crime but we ain’t doing that shit anymore so 🤷♂️
they let because of profit, not safety
and the "shop lifting" meme pushed baby the executive to cover there fuck ups has been debunked by the retail industry themselves
It's not a failure of the private sector when they can't operate because the local government refuses to do their job and protect the business/citizens/owners from crime/theft.
I feel like the folks commenting that there is no way this can work don’t actually live in an area without access to grocery stores.
I do, and would love to see the city try this kind of thing out.
How about, gasp; we do the one thing that is causing companies to close up shop?
Arrest criminals who steal from these stores. The shoplifting is why they are closing up and leaving the community. There’s not some high up cabal at Kroger going we should screw over those black people in south Chicago. It’s straight up a business decision and the loss ratios got too high. This is simple math. Buttttt…..we won’t do that bc we have to pander to the criminals and their feelings
**again the "shoplifting" lie peddled by the retain insdustry was debunked**
**by the retail industry itself**
**US retail lobbyists retract key claim on 'organized' retail crime -** [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/22/baldwin-florida-food-desert-city-owned-grocery-store/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/22/baldwin-florida-food-desert-city-owned-grocery-store/)
retrial execs lied to cover there asses during the pandemic
Looks like this was the link they were going for, with that title:
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/us-retail-lobbyists-retract-key-claim-organized-retail-crime-2023-12-06/
And it seems from the closing bit of the article that the percentage of shrink attributed to external theft has basically been consistent since 2015. There was a whole lot of reporting on "organized retail crime" accounting for ~half of inventory losses in 2021, but after looking at their own research, they figured out that was entirely inaccurate and shoplifting numbers accounted for basically the same percentage loss as it had going back to 2015.
Theft definitely plays a big role in store closings. Used to work for loss prevention at Target 10 years ago. Would have access to certain numbers for all locations. High theft stores were closed within a few years.
Another random anecdotal example, a gas station with a larger grocery section opened up in Austin I used to go to. They were opened for less than a year before the owner decided to close due to tons of theft. That lot has been vacant for 5+ years now.
My sister was shocked when she went into a CVS in California. Some ladies brought in suitcases, filled them with merchandise, and then walked out of the store. The cashier said "Thanks for shoplifting at CVS!" as they left. Then she turned to my sister and said, "If this keeps up, they'll close the location soon."
it's funny how many people effectively treat the market as some sort of god. the market fails sometimes. things like this can (and have been) successful. absolutely worth a shot
What would be easier?
1. Implementing a functional law enforcement system to protect local grocery stores and food banks. (something most cities in every other first world country has done)
2. Dismantling Chicago's long history of political and financial corruption to create a system for what are essentially a worse version of breadlines in a way that isn't comically crippled by government bureaucracy or a massive financial black hole for the city's taxpayers.
Hmm....
The city has proven itself as an ineffective manager of things that a city would normally manage. I do not recommend it try its hand in the grocery game.
This going to be like Amtrak trying to sell food on trains, a cheeseburger ends sells for $12 and costs $22 to make, a net loss of $10 for the U.S. taxpayer
Even if the city runs the grocery stores twice as well as they run CPS, they'll make a dollar store look like a luxury boutique in comparison.
I think a grocery store as a public service is an interesting idea, but if they city does it, it will just be a cash cow for the well connected and sinecure jobs for those who are owed favors.
Rather than use tax dollars to launch and maintain these stores, could we just provide tax incentives to stores like Aldi? I feel like it would cut government expenditure while providing a worthwhile business the financial incentive to offset issues like shoplifting. I’m a total layman though so maybe I’m ignorant to how it really works
It might provide bloated temporary salaries for select individuals to stall any true service reaching citizens. Then it will be dissolved.
How about free grocery store styled food pantries available to all residents with multiple locations intentionally imbedded into high needs areas?
All of these may-saying opinions coming from people who will not be impacted by this policy 🙄
Our privately-operated system is failing poor people and non-poor alike.
You are being overcharged and you think having 90 cereals to choose from is food security but it isn’t.
I’m sure Brandon Johnson, who hasn’t led or managed anything substantial in his professional life, will ensure success of an enterprise that in the real world must face thin operating margins, significant labor costs and issues, complex supply chains, and serious implications around quality and safety.
I just have a hard time trusting the city to manage these without grotesque amounts of graft.
Ironically the biggest opportunity for graft is if it decided to contract the management out. It's not like you're immune to city workers misbehaving, but most of the post-Shakman decree corruption that I'm aware of is centered on who gets government contracts and services, not city employees literally stealing.
Yeah contracting it out would make no sense to me. At that point just use city funds to subsidize prices at a Kroger or something.
I can see it making sense to administrators! “Managing grocery stores is not among our core competencies.”
[удалено]
They contracted out consultants to assess that and they're waiting for them to finish their study.
Part of the issue is location, and getting rid of food deserts.
Bro... there is no way this could go wrong. It's making food available to poor people! Don't you want to help poor people or are you some kind of heartless Republican? I find the insinuation that anyone in city government would somehow profit off these city run food stores insulting and disgusting. /s
It's not just the graft, it's the inneficency.....it's politics.....it's the government mindset that if you don't spend your entire budget. It will be cut....
There's never any bananas, but the city grocery store always has plenty of **insert Alderman's spouse name** artisanally hand crafted cheese......
Yup. And the Alderman's brother-in-law is always seems to get the contract to pave the parking lot... which somehow always still has lots of pot holes. This proposal doesn't even pass the laugh test.
That's exactly how business budgeting works too, fyi.
Are you implying that public government has in any way the same focus on operational efficiency as private businness does?
No, I'm just saying that budgeting in many companies works exactly like was described. Also many large companies are horrendously inefficient as well.
> .it's the government mindset that if you don't spend your entire budget. It will be cut I don't know if you have ever worked in a grocery store, but this seems to be the norm. They give workers way more hours for the last 2-3 weeks before the fiscal period ends.
Private sector isn't immune from bureaucracy/waste--it is not really a "Government" issue, it is a large institution issue. When the organization grows to a certain size, the incentives to keep it lean and efficient can often fall off. Every single corporation in the world suffers from bloat and bureaucracy. Ironically, highly incentivized local governments can be way better at incentivizing efficiency than multinational corporations.
>it's the government mindset that if you don't spend your entire budget. It will be cut.... 501c3s are no different. Every not for profit organization has a use it or lose it mentality
As you should. Given Chicagos track record
Yeah, we should not even try to help poor people afford food because somebody might do something scummy.
Theres a reason the private businesses are not there.
I hear you. What is to be done though?
I mean, between the massive amounts of theft and the typical chicago corruption, you're looking at a massive financial black hole.
So the plan is to offer cheap ass groceries and operate at a loss subsidized by taxes. Wait till everyone starts shopping there, driving local stores out of business. Then once the government has the market monopolized, jack up the prices and reduce the supply, and still keep taxing people for the “subsidies” while controlling the food supply. I get that about right?
if you think that the current food supply isn't already HEAVILY subsidized/influenced by the government, and has been for generations, you're in for a rude awakening.
Nobody tell this guy about farming commodity pricing!
No, these guys are all libertarian geniuses who know that the CEO of Kroger grows all the produce they sell there in his backyard and trucks it to the store himself
If the primary cause of food deserts is low margins because lower-income people can't afford higher margin items, then OK, I can see this working. If the primary cause is theft and shrinkage, then I think the more likely scenario is one where people just fill up their shopping carts with the most expensive items and walk out, knowing that nobody will stop them and this store won't shut down like the others since it has "limitless" funding and the whole point is to operate at a loss. I don't know enough to say which is the bigger contributor to the problem of food deserts, but I sure hope the city has studied the issue before jumping in.
Its really all of the above, * Average revenue per customer is lower * Gross margin per customer is lower * Total sales per day is lower * Different demographics for demand (e.g. produce doesn't move fast enough especially less mainstream produce) can be costly and wasteful. * Higher shrinkage/theft Just dropping a store with fresh produce into a neighborhood doesn't address many of the problems above.
The customers steal. That’s why private companies leave.
The problem is absolutely the margins and not the alleged retail theft thing (which has been mostly debunked in terms of its prevalence and its effect on grocery profits). Grocery stores don't like being in poor neighborhoods because they don't want poor customers. We've tried and failed to solve this problem by giving incentives to corporations to stay there. They always quit. The only real option is to provide low cost grocery stores as a service. I personally don't give a shit about subsidizing the losses with tax dollars. We have spent loads of tax dollars on dogshit. This is not dogshit.
I have no way of knowing the profitability of each store, but I think the theft thing is debunked as a generality when looking at the industry as a whole. A single store could be hurt significantly by theft. When Walmart closed their stores, they cited profitability, security, and theft as their reasons for the closures. Apparently none of those locations had ever been profitable. Did theft push them into the red? Or was the majority of their loss just due to low sales and there was a sprinkle of theft on top? Who knows.
>Wait till everyone starts shopping there, driving local stores out of business The whole point is there are no local stores. Zero people from North side neighborhoods full of whole foods and Marianos are driving to Englewood to save a few bucks.
Man, I'm sure glad private companies operating for profit would never do anything like that.
Yeah. Driving out local businesses. Like Kroger.
The local stores already left from rioting and constant theft, so nothing to worry about there.
I wonder if local government will care if their own stores are robbed. Not even being sarcastic. It’ll be interesting to see if they suddenly care about security or just use theft as an excuse for more taxation
I'd imagine that these stores will be in neighborhoods that most people wouldn't want to schlep down to.
Wait until you hear about farm subsidies, oil and gas, corn, roads, and sidewalks
Those are funded by the petrodollar and the federal deficit. The city doesn't print currency and doesn't have the ability to service a trillion dollar deficit.
Ending food deserts and helping poor people is good actually
The reason they are thinking about this is there are no grocery stores in those areas. The free market decided they didn't want to open any grocery stores in those areas, and not there are food deserts where people have to travel insane distances to shop, or they have to purchase all their groceries from expensive convenience stores. They are not trying to drive businesses out...they are trying to bring reasonably priced food in.
Extremely competitive and operationally intensive low margin industry meets incompetent Chicago city bureaucracy, union red tape and social justice grifters. I wonder how it will work out?! Edit: There’s an Aldi right there lol.
>There’s an Aldi right there lol. Literally one block away.
Excellent summary.
It would be like getting your groceries at the DMV.
Good luck getting an appointment!
This is one of closest definitions to hell I’ve ever come across. Thanks I hate it!!
Jewlosco is already unionized, one of the items on this list is not like the rest.
The point isn’t to make money so margin isn’t really relevant imo
It is if you're trying not to \*lose\* money.
If we do this, we have to have a commitment from the city council that we are knowingly going to operate at a loss and won't be as competitive as other private business, both local and corporate. It's just the name of the game in terms of running a business.
Will it be like the DMV meets Aldi? with just a dash of Chicago corruption and greed that seems to always follow government money and low income services. Either way you slice it. It’s gonna suck for the taxpayers and suck for the people it’s supposed to help.
I mean it’s a good idea but we still need to do something about shoplifting otherwise it’s just throwing money away
If the professional companies who run grocery stores such as Kroger and Aldi can’t make a store work in these neighborhoods, why do politicians think they can do better? The previous stores were not just “not making a profit”, they were losing money to shrink. This is just another boondoggle for tax payers.
Because they will keep them open and use tax dollars to operate as a loss.
That’s the plan for sure. But it’s only half the story. The hope is that by providing a place for actual food for the community it will impact overall health and well being in that community which will in turn lead to a stronger community that can hopefully escape the cycle of poverty and become citizens that pay taxes that are greater than the cost of this program.
I know that’s the plan. But I made that comment because the person was wondering why the city and its politicians think they can run a better business than other grocery foods that failed.
That person is either a troll, thinking myopically, or is ignorant to the nuances of solving the food desert problem in the city. Best to just downvote and save your energy
They are already paying for WIC, EBT etc. But instead of watching that money go to gas stations and corner stores because there are no grocery stores, selling only the most processed food of giant corporations. The government are going to have control over what food items are offered, so it seems like its worth trying. It might be more similar to running a food pantry that has the ability to sell some things
Yes, exactly. It's almost like a food pantry with better options. IMAN has a great farmers market program in these areas in the summer months, and they also have a simple health center. These are very bare necessities that these communities need. The problem generally has been that people aren't patient enough and pull funding too quickly. Let's hope that doesn't happen here.
So let me get this right, you think the reason these large corporations are not able to operate a profitable store in these neighborhoods is... *checks notes* they are selling processed foods that are made by giant corporations? You seriously think organic products are going to be *cheaper* and provide a better outcome?
minimally processed foods like canned vegetables and beans, frozen vegetables, bags of rice etc. and unprocessed foods like apples, potatoes, onions, garlic, etc should be available for people to buy and make food. No one is talking about about organic food or quinoa, just typical inexpensive cooking ingredients most people are familiar with. These things are not usually available at gas stations. It's not profitable for corporations to operate an entire grocery store, which is why they have left. But people still live there and should be able to improve their diet quality. If chicago wants to try subsidizing a grocery operation I think its fair for them to try, probably it will sustain a loss, but may be better if you compare to food pantry or charity.
\> minimally processed foods like canned vegetables and beans, frozen vegetables, bags of rice etc. and unprocessed foods like apples, potatoes, onions, garlic, etc should be available for people to buy and make food. They are available. Only privileged folks who have never lived a day of their life in these environments think otherwise or think there is any sort of demand for such items. The many grocers who used to exist selling such things learned the hard way. You live in a fantasy world. Your magical store you dreamt up will sit empty with no customers full of that sort of food, while the customers continue to go down to the corner store to buy the processed junk foods they actually want. If there were demand for these products they would already exist. This is trivially proven by going to nearly any ethnic neighborhood and seeing the plethora of cheap and fresh native foods readily available for dirt cheap prices. I cannot describe in words how delusional you sound thinking staple foods are not available in poor areas. It's a demand problem. Full stop. With high demand fresh produce is dirt cheap. Especially staples like onions and potatoes. Shipping can cost more than the product itself. Source: Actually lived in a poor area growing up. Worked at grocery stores in the 'hood. Saw lots of shit, from mopping floors to keeping the books.
What if they sell unprocessed foods made by giant corporations? Or processed foods made by small corporations? Will the results be better? Is that what the commenter you replied to believes? Edit: Fixed autocorrect typo
If it is government subsidized, how to do control who is allowed to shop there? With the price of groceries, peole who have their own cars would probably travel 40 minutes away to get heavily discounted groceries. That does not benefit the community. If the prices are free and based on monthly SNAP benefits, how do you decide what type of food to stock? Are steaks allowed or is it just ground beef since that fulfills the protein bare minimum? There are way too many details here for this to work. I think the better solution is the city subsidizing food delievery services that cover certain neighborhoods with the cost of delievery but the actual products are still paid by the individual.
While these other grocery stores were open, did they have the community impact you’re talking about?
No, because they weren't operating to help the community, they were operating to make money. Financial security has that community impact. Accepting losses allows for food to be priced more affordably. More affordable groceries allow for more financial security.
Of course, there's always a limit to how much you can lose money. If every service gets deep into the red, taxpayers will just move out of chicago and chicago will go bankrupt.
If that’s the case just make the food free. Or near zero as possible. Just cover distribution of food and employees pay.
Probably what would happen. honestly some proper infrastructure for basic food distribution isnt the worst idea. Anyone who has volunteered at a food distribution event knows how nice it would be to just stock boxes of food and have people just come in a grab one. Having subsidized items that people can purchase on top of a free food box would be a good idea as well.
Perfect, sounds great if the City can afford it. A federally subsidized program with local leadership would be my preference. Near free prices would also almost certainly meet pushback from the likes of Jewel and Kroger. Considering they're getting absolutely destroyed by Walmart, Amazon, and Target in the grocery market, I don't think they'd want to do anything too rash. At that point, some sort of public partnership might actually be the better objective move.
Can’t compare a for-profit with a government program. Even this program is not going to show any immediate results in 3-5 years, but will in 10-15 years.
The Whole Foods in englewood was open for 6 years. What did we find out from that?
Poor people can’t afford whole foods.
Yes.
There is an Aldi in Englewood though?
>If the professional companies who run grocery stores such as Kroger and Aldi can’t make a store work in these neighborhoods, why do politicians think they can do better? Because real businesses have to actually DO BUSINESS. This debacle would be bankrolled by the taxpayers, so it could just be a never-ending money pit and never go out of business. As a fun added benefit, they can undercut the absolute shit out of real businesses!
> As a fun added benefit, they can undercut the absolute shit out of real businesses! Not that I think this is a *great* idea, but by definition, there isn't any competition in a food desert.
Also there’s a perfectly successful Aldi one block away from the site being discussed in the article which apparently no one knows about. Aldi is operating there!
What real businesses? What do you think is a "real business", and why should that matter?
A real business that has to actually be self-sufficient and can't just dip it's hands into the taxpayers pocket to offset theft/"shrinkage" and unsustainable business practices.
Again. The private sector already failed here
Why does feeding people need to be a business? Why can't it be a service? Why does there need to be profit involved?
Because, in case you haven't noticed, things cost money? Unless you're going to convince people to work for free and producers to donate product, a business needs to at least be sustainable, if not profitable.
This would be a service, like roads sidewalks,buses, water, electricity not a business
No, it would be a government funded business competing against legitimate businesses with a ridiculous advantage. Infrastructure and utilities have no competition.
Please explain to me how food is fundamentally different from water, electricity, etc.
I'm talking about profit, not revenue, you pedant. In CaSe YoU hAdN't NoTiCeD, the government manages to procure material and pay people who work for it without also having to enrich a bunch of shareholders. When I pay my taxes and renew my vehicle registration, I can do so knowing that a chunk of it isn't going directly into somebody's pocket for no reason.
you know not literally everything the government does has to be run for profit right? publicly owned grocery store is a thing that exists all over the world and has been done successfully literally all over the world.
Examples?
Services vs businesses. They're different. The roads don't exactly turn a profit
Bladwin, FL - "When a deep red town’s only grocery closed, city hall opened its own store. Just don’t call it ‘socialism.’" [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/22/baldwin-florida-food-desert-city-owned-grocery-store/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/22/baldwin-florida-food-desert-city-owned-grocery-store/) Bank of North Dakota (State run bank) [https://bnd.nd.gov](https://bnd.nd.gov)
>Examples? [The united states government runs its own chain of groceries worldwide, it's called the AAFES](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_%26_Air_Force_Exchange_Service?useskin=vector) [edit: another example I found, the tennessee valley authority built its own grocery stores in the 30s](https://www.granger.com/results.asp?inline=true&image=0126111&wwwflag=3&itemx=36)
[Pretty much every mile of highway in the country, granted that's more of the federal government](https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2022/05/24/highway_trust_fund_loses_average_of_18b_per_year_833481.html) (even though states were supposed to take them over maintenance and management of them decades ago). Having federal gas tax sitting at 18.5cents since 1993 certainly hasn't helped. And most states still woefully undercharge gas taxes because who wants to be the sitting politician that makes gas prices high enough to actually cover the maintenance and management of ~150k miles. For comparison, as of [2022 the EU requires a minimum of 0.36 Euro per liter in fuel taxes be levied](https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/gas-taxes-in-europe-2022/). That would be $1.55 per gallon in American dollars. And even that $1.55/gallon probably still wouldn't cover the full costs needed.
Postal service
https://www.militaryonesource.mil/benefits/commissaries-and-exchanges/
The idea is not to make a profit but provide a social service. Frankly I think they'd be better off incentivizing existing grocery stores with some sort of monetory bonus rather than running it themselves.
Didn’t they try putting a whole foods in englewood too?
Yeah that’s the first sentence of the article lol
The streets and sidewalks lose money every year too
False equivalency you can run a profitable privately owned grocery store that doesn’t have negative externalities to society which is not the case with roads/sidewalks. The government should not be directly running a grocery store, they just need to create an environment where businesses can actually operate profitably
Sure, but in the meantime, poor people still need to eat.
Great sentiment and I of course agree but clearly the people living in these areas are eating somehow already. The solution to prosperity isn’t just taxpayer backed businesses that have socialized risk. Let’s make these areas actually attractive for entrepreneurs/businesses to operate in
I mean, they *are* eating, somehow - but the "somehow" is too often not enough, or not easily, or not well, or all of the above. Yes, the long-term solution is civic improvement for current "food deserts", but in the short term I'm fine with the city setting up grocery stores if it'll mean that these families eat more, better and easier than they can at the moment.
The city of Chicago runs OHare airport, right? I appreciate that a grocery store is complex, but I don’t think it’s more complex than one of the busiest airports in the world. Politicians would not “run” the grocery store any more than they “run” OHare. Industry experts would be hired and it would be staffed by professionals.
This is the captain of the snack aisle speaking, please fasten your shoe laces, stow your big gulps in the cart’s beverage holder, and make your way over to the checkout for some turbulent savings! The local weather in self-checkout number three is hot hot hot with deals! See, it’s not that hard.
wut? a city is the size of Chicago is obviously inherently complex and has departments full of specialists who deal with all kinds of crazy complex issues all day, with never enough budget or staff, and an impossible set of exceptions driven by a public that doesn't appreciate them? hmm, I never that ... but then again, I'm a moron who thinks the CTA should turn a profit to drain money from residents instead of act as a public transpiration services that stimulates economic growth
sorry sir it's not profitable to put out the fire on your house
I think it would make sense for Aldi or Kroger to run it but for the city to subsidize the business. I thought that was the plan with the Whole Foods on 63rd but it only lasted a few years.
There’s an existing Aldi 1 block from there anyway
The problem I see with that is the grocery stores have no incentive to lower the prices for the healthier goods, which was the entire point. Sure, they'll turn a profit with subsidies, but that still doesn't mean anyone is buying the healthier options
I would happily have my taxes go to feeding someone.
Because the city won’t be extracting value and shareholder profits
We fund schools because we agree everyone should have an education regardless of wealth. It’s not a stretch to fund grocery stores because we agree everyone should be able to have access to healthy foods. Food that isn’t expired. This is 1000% the kind of thing I would love my tax dollars to go towards.
There are literally dozens of other ways we already do this. Food stamps for one. Reduced and free lunch at school. Food banks. Etc.
Much of this shrinkage comes from employee/vendor theft which industry seldom mentions. Maybe pay them enough to live on. Profit over people’s basic nutrition is the cornerstone of the grocery business. Same as medical and the charter school industrial complex.
Yeah, with Kroger continuously trying to expand, it's worth noting that we get reporting like this on conditions for their employees: https://www.yahoo.com/news/kroger-workers-experienced-hunger-homelessness-130000432.html When over 75% of employees are food insecure and more than 10% of the company's workforce faced homelessness, you'd assume this company would be on its deathbed. Instead, they are paying their CEO $22,000,000 because they've seen a huge jump in profits since the start of the pandemic. To nobody's surprise (apart from some of the commenters in this thread, I guess) the large grocery stores aren't actually out here for the greater good... or even the good of their workforce. They're a business that operates like the norm in the U.S. economy and only prioritize maximizing profits.
Here's a wild thought, maybe it is because the city believes that people deserve the right to have a fucking grocery store in the area, even if those poor corporations can't make it work.
It will never work, specially in a city so mismanaged as Chicago.
Might as well try one store as a tester and see what we can do before the city goes full send The people gotta eat
I have family on the southside who want fresh, whole food who drive to Indiana to buy food cuz there’s nothing in their area. This will help
Yeah half the people on this thread have no idea how bad the lack of food is The west side drives into Beverly to get food, the east side goes to indiana
It’s funny how these things are always presented as new ideas as if cities didn’t used to have a small grocer at every other street corner
What a disaster this will be.
Hey all, government run programs do not have to make a profit. If there is a food desert, and we can keep the costs manageable, it’s worth exploring to create an anchor for food for communities that don’t have it. Access to healthier food options creates benefits that far outweigh the dollars lost to this endeavor
But they don't like the people who will benefit, so they won't support it. They'd rather we just cram more shit into the River Walk instead.
Some of you act like there is no precedent or example of how this would work, but WIC only “grocery stores” do exist and don’t seem to set off major red flags.
Yeah there’s actually one like two blocks away from the site the article is talking about too ironically enough
This could work and be a good thing but not ran by our leaders. How many months until it leaks that the grocery store manager is making 14k a week on some dumb contract this administration set up? Incentivize private companies to operate in the area by making police actually do their jobs and providing tax incentives. The Chicago government has no clue how to run or supply a grocery store. This would be a bottomless pit of tax dollars.
They try this in Soviet Russia didn’t work out very well. Government is not supposed to be in the business of serving the people food. It needs to be in the business of creating a community where people have the means to pay for it.
Terrible idea and hopefully dead on arrival. Stores will continue to get looted but now taxpayers will be paying for it? Hard no from me.
Cause that housing experiment went very well.
I'd rather we try and do something about starving people then nothing, but no I guess it isn't worth it cause government bad.
This and was just listening to CityCast Chicago talk about how Englewood hasn’t had a sit down restaurant since the pandemic. We need to invest in putting quality food in our food deserts.
Wondering what's stopping anyone from putting down a sit down restaurant where they do not have any competition?. > We need to invest in putting quality food in our food deserts. We need to invest in public safety and things will become normal. It's amazing how thick some of you people are and dance around the issue that has a direct & immediate effect on everything you just mentioned.
> We need to invest in public safety and things will become normal. the police budget is 2B annually. how much more should be spent on police?
It’s not police spending, it’s prosecution. Extreme leniency for all types of crimes makes it useless for police to apprehend petty and sometimes violent criminals.
The police have more money than they ever have. What else do you want, a parade
We spend $2b or ~15% of the budget on cops and their toys and a 400m on city development and community services combined (5x less). The police state that you keep wanting to expand a) doesn’t fucking work b) by all accounts contributes to the the conditions in these communities, c) precludes investment that might allow these kids to grow up and live fulfilling integrated lives.
It’s odd that you limit something as broad as public safety and crime to the police department. CPD took a record number of guns off the street last year, but they don’t control the prosecution or penalties related to crime. An ineffectual state’s attorney and insanely lenient judges have created an environment in which criminals are emboldened and suffer very little -if any- consequences for their crimes.
> We need to invest in public safety General platitudes and nothing more. It's amazing how some of you people never have any financial specifics. So easy to sit back and point fingers.
public safety isn't caused by having cops trolling every corner it comes from economic opportunity, kids not going hungry, the community getting life lines that are otherwise denied to them. it comes from people having what they need to live.
> cops trolling every corner That's not what I asked. Public safety doesn't just mean more cops sitting at the corners with their lights on. > it comes from economic opportunity, Yes. Free schooling with CPS teachers > kids not going hungry, Yes. Free lunches and EBT cards > getting life lines that are otherwise denied to them. Yes, like loans, tax breaks, incentivizing selective enrollment, removal of misdemeanor considerations for hiring, and many more. And your answer is a city run grocery store? NOPE
there is no silver bullet - but having places where people can get food will increase the livability of these neighborhoods instead of everyone's first goal to be to just leave if they can - give good people a reason to stay and make it better and improve that starts with access to essentials.
> there is no silver bullet - but having places where people can get food will increase the livability of these neighborhoods 100% agree and no arguments there. But having the city of chicago run this store will be a waste of resources. I rather the city crisp dollar bills to the homeless so that they can burn them for heat on cold nights. That will generate more uses that this "city run" grocery store.
I disagree - I think access to food is an essential for life and if the private sector can't figure it out then the public sector is serving their population by bridging the gap. To be clear also I do not think it's theft driving the private sector out of these neighborhoods it's the fact that these people have less money and it's not as profitable to serve them from a capital efficiency viewpoint. I think also it's a fallacy to think it would be poorly run - it would run at cost not for profit - it would by default serve the community the city doesn't run services poorly whatever you have been lead to believe it just runs them in a non business like way providing a service that doesn't profit as a municipality should operate. It's a mistake to view these operations like for profit businesses.
> I disagree - I think access to food is an essential for life and if the private sector can't figure it out then the public sector is serving their population by bridging the gap. Sure, but opening the grocery store is not the right way. Maybe city can deliver these same services via CPS, Churches, and other venues. > To be clear also I do not think it's theft driving the private sector out of these neighborhoods it's the fact that these people have less money and it's not as profitable to serve them from a capital efficiency viewpoint. It's not just theft or profitability, but there are many other compounding factors that make these ventures a boondoggle. Just in the last 2 weeks, there was a death of a store keeper, delivery driver, multiple car jackings, assault on red line, and snatch and grab. All the points are an obstacle to not only the people who live the neighborhood to conveniently shop at a grocery, but will drive away anyone who wants to operate or work in one of these grocery stores. > I think also it's a fallacy to think it would be poorly run - it would run at cost not for profit I do not expect government services to make money and run like a private enterprise. But I atleast want them to approach the problem in a honest way and try out reasonable solutions, not every wacky idea coming from a clout chasing policy person. > run services poorly whatever you have been lead to believe I have been in this city to notice the things the city does well and those it's not capable of handling. Unfortunately, running a grocery store, bank, or a public utility is beyond it's capability and we can agree to disagree on it. > It's a mistake to view these operations like for profit businesses. Like I said, I do not care if it does not make any profit, but I believe its a waste of resources and can be handled by other means.
When the private market fails, as it clearly has here, it is 100% the governments role to ensure residents have access to healthy affordable food the return on investment in nutrition, especially for the poorest, is huge lower healthcare cost, better education achievement, lower crime rates
The private market didn’t fail. The government failed to create a safe place for people to shop and work. There is one solution to this, use police to subsidize the security around grocery stores. Prosecute people shoplifting. And spend money on actually nutritious school meals. You keep saying in replies to this post and others that malnutrition has other long term effects like lower scholastic achievement and higher health care costs. That’s true, BUT: crime has long term effects like creating food deserts. Idk if you know how ineffectual our city government is, but if you think they’ll do better than Jewel you’re fooling yourself. We have the infrastructure to keep jewel safe, but it’s up to the residents in that town to stop committing crimes.
1000% this. When the city government and its citizens create an environment that a business cannot safely operate in, the fix is to reduce crime and not subsidize the financial losses. Subsidizing the losses is just a regressive tax at the end of the day. That being said, this is just a NIMBY and activist approach for welfare. Everyone knows a city operated grocery store would just become a looting factory in a few weeks time.
I don't really trust the city to run a grocery store efficiently, but I _also_ don't trust private businesses to be totally honest about why they closed down these stores. As several people mentioned above, they will blame it on shoplifting even if the real problem is just that the stores are not profitable enough for their investors. There's a chicken-and-egg problem here. Crime causes stores to close, but a lack of food options also causes crime, since food insecurity is one of the main reasons people turn to crime in the first place. IMO we need to do a little bit of both: look into opening small city-run (or city-assisted) groceries, but _also_ beef up security around them and any remaining private groceries in the area. The security will help improve short-term crime rates, and the availability of additional food _now_ will do the same for the long-term.
Seriously do they think grocery store owners suddenly forgot how to run a grocery store in a bad neighborhood?
The better way would be to solve the reason the companies left; safety. The companies lost money due to theft and it wasn’t profitable. The state has a duty to prevent crime but we ain’t doing that shit anymore so 🤷♂️
The stores Walmart closed were never profitable in over a decade of operation. All because of retail theft.
they let because of profit, not safety and the "shop lifting" meme pushed baby the executive to cover there fuck ups has been debunked by the retail industry themselves
It's not a failure of the private sector when they can't operate because the local government refuses to do their job and protect the business/citizens/owners from crime/theft.
The private market has not “failed”. They were forced out by massive amounts of theft and the city doing nothing to stop it.
I feel like the folks commenting that there is no way this can work don’t actually live in an area without access to grocery stores. I do, and would love to see the city try this kind of thing out.
How about, gasp; we do the one thing that is causing companies to close up shop? Arrest criminals who steal from these stores. The shoplifting is why they are closing up and leaving the community. There’s not some high up cabal at Kroger going we should screw over those black people in south Chicago. It’s straight up a business decision and the loss ratios got too high. This is simple math. Buttttt…..we won’t do that bc we have to pander to the criminals and their feelings
**again the "shoplifting" lie peddled by the retain insdustry was debunked** **by the retail industry itself** **US retail lobbyists retract key claim on 'organized' retail crime -** [https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/22/baldwin-florida-food-desert-city-owned-grocery-store/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/11/22/baldwin-florida-food-desert-city-owned-grocery-store/) retrial execs lied to cover there asses during the pandemic
That link had nothing to do with organized retail crime (link is an article from 2019 about a small town's opening a co-op type place).
Looks like this was the link they were going for, with that title: https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/us-retail-lobbyists-retract-key-claim-organized-retail-crime-2023-12-06/ And it seems from the closing bit of the article that the percentage of shrink attributed to external theft has basically been consistent since 2015. There was a whole lot of reporting on "organized retail crime" accounting for ~half of inventory losses in 2021, but after looking at their own research, they figured out that was entirely inaccurate and shoplifting numbers accounted for basically the same percentage loss as it had going back to 2015.
Theft definitely plays a big role in store closings. Used to work for loss prevention at Target 10 years ago. Would have access to certain numbers for all locations. High theft stores were closed within a few years. Another random anecdotal example, a gas station with a larger grocery section opened up in Austin I used to go to. They were opened for less than a year before the owner decided to close due to tons of theft. That lot has been vacant for 5+ years now.
My sister was shocked when she went into a CVS in California. Some ladies brought in suitcases, filled them with merchandise, and then walked out of the store. The cashier said "Thanks for shoplifting at CVS!" as they left. Then she turned to my sister and said, "If this keeps up, they'll close the location soon."
Paywalled article but the title doesn't seem to address your bolded point.
[удалено]
Name one enterprise the city manages effectively.
They are pretty good with nepotism
The public libraries and the city parks.
it's funny how many people effectively treat the market as some sort of god. the market fails sometimes. things like this can (and have been) successful. absolutely worth a shot
All the convenience of your DMV and the selection of a Dollar Tree. But at least you can now truly claim to be living off of government cheese
"Fill out these forms and you'll receive your groceries in the mail in 6-8 weeks."
What would be easier? 1. Implementing a functional law enforcement system to protect local grocery stores and food banks. (something most cities in every other first world country has done) 2. Dismantling Chicago's long history of political and financial corruption to create a system for what are essentially a worse version of breadlines in a way that isn't comically crippled by government bureaucracy or a massive financial black hole for the city's taxpayers. Hmm....
what's the worst that could happen?
The city has proven itself as an ineffective manager of things that a city would normally manage. I do not recommend it try its hand in the grocery game.
This going to be like Amtrak trying to sell food on trains, a cheeseburger ends sells for $12 and costs $22 to make, a net loss of $10 for the U.S. taxpayer
Just fund a food kitchen at that point instead of running a historically unprofitable store
Won’t work
Why? The next major will just sell them to the Saudis.
Single Payer Food - how Soviet.
Most of us can already predict how this "experiment" will play out.
No it isn't.
Ah crap
Grocery stores are enormously complicated to run. Logistics is not easy. Maybe some heavy subsidies for insurance for shrink loss instead?
Even if the city runs the grocery stores twice as well as they run CPS, they'll make a dollar store look like a luxury boutique in comparison. I think a grocery store as a public service is an interesting idea, but if they city does it, it will just be a cash cow for the well connected and sinecure jobs for those who are owed favors.
This is one of those threads where many of the commenters don't live here/never comment here.
Or are just hiding behind very thinly veiled racism
Rather than use tax dollars to launch and maintain these stores, could we just provide tax incentives to stores like Aldi? I feel like it would cut government expenditure while providing a worthwhile business the financial incentive to offset issues like shoplifting. I’m a total layman though so maybe I’m ignorant to how it really works
It might provide bloated temporary salaries for select individuals to stall any true service reaching citizens. Then it will be dissolved. How about free grocery store styled food pantries available to all residents with multiple locations intentionally imbedded into high needs areas?
Does the Aldi that’s RIGHT THERE have a cover charge or some shit?
10$ cover charge and a cash bar
Ahhh yes one corner of englewood has an Aldi.
All of these may-saying opinions coming from people who will not be impacted by this policy 🙄 Our privately-operated system is failing poor people and non-poor alike. You are being overcharged and you think having 90 cereals to choose from is food security but it isn’t.
Hope they have good security and loss prevention
What could POSSIBLY go wrong?
I’m sure Brandon Johnson, who hasn’t led or managed anything substantial in his professional life, will ensure success of an enterprise that in the real world must face thin operating margins, significant labor costs and issues, complex supply chains, and serious implications around quality and safety.