Mandami

Quote: Gandler

I'm not going to get into most of those points at the moment, but I just want to talk about:

City run groceries stores are actually quite common, and often in deep red areas. So it is not a crazy left idea. Most city owned grocery stores currently in existence are in very small towns where private stores will not open so the city is forced to open and run a full grocery store. In fact everyone I am aware of is in a highly red area. So this is in no way a crazy left or unheard of idea.

Except I've never heard of it lol. I do know there is a general concern that there is a growing problem that rural areas are developing 'food deserts' where you just can't get the big store experience everybody wants, with lower prices, good selection of produce and meat; and just that general good variety of everything. I have participated in some charity efforts to help alleviate this, but nowhere near me are grocery stores being subsidized.

Quote: Gandler

https://www.ruralgrocery.org/learn/publications/case-studies/

Basically all of these are rural towns/cities of less than a 1000 (usually way less.) And, virtually all are deep red.

Kansas has several. Florida had one (closed in 2024.). Wisconsin is in the process of opening one. Illinois has several, and not just in Chicago, rural areas...

And, if you count military commissaries (grocery stores on military bases), the federal government owns a large chain of grocery stores.

So, no, it is not unheard of. Most locally owned ones are in red areas, usually when a town is so small or remote it is not worth a company to open a full service grocery store.

I have no issue with NYC opening their own chain of grocery stores as well.

I guess you have convinced me this is going on. I have to think people in these rural areas are pretty aware of many drawbacks and seeing an acceptable situation progress into worse and worse [or soon will see it] as expenses increase while the subsidizing is locked in and doesn't increase. Empty shelves develop. Surely they also say "it's better than nothing" . Since there are food deserts I can't be totally against it in rural areas.

In a city, we are talking not about eliminating a desert but just providing lower prices, right? This is totally different, and I am sticking to my prediction that the subsidizing will not keep up with costs , leading to it being a joke in the end after starting out OK

I saw a funny experience develop with the subsidized Metrorail of DC and adjoining areas. I was seeing problems with the funding, for example the escalators would break down and they would constantly be putting bandaids on them with work crews. It was clear to me they just needed to replace some of these [saving money in the long run] and do things like keep the rain off. Nope, bandaids.

Ridership was low, and I thought that was the problem, that they weren't enough people paying for the service. Then something happened, people decided they wanted to change and use metrorail, and ridership went way up, really straining the system. But I thought then that soon this increased ridership would help fix the problem, because I had always worked in private business and more customers was always what you wanted. But Metrorail got worse and worse, stranding people, getting behind in the bandaid business, etc. At least one big crash due to maintenance problems

I realize finally that I had been naive. In a subsidized system, the worse thing that can happen is to get more people using it. Selling more tickets increases the amount that is just not sufficient. The costs go up and up but the subsidization help remains the same! And it's like pulling teeth to try to get it back to where it needs to be. Oh why would that be?

Oh, who knows, maybe Venezuela etc will say "MumDummy has shown the way" it works out so good

Quote: odiousgambit

Except I've never heard of it lol. I do know there is a general concern that there is a growing problem that rural areas are developing 'food deserts' where you just can't get the big store experience everybody wants, with lower prices, good selection of produce and meat; and just that general good variety of everything. I have participated in some charity efforts to help alleviate this, but nowhere near me are grocery stores being subsidized.

I guess you have convinced me this is going on. I have to think people in these rural areas are pretty aware of many drawbacks and seeing an acceptable situation progress into worse and worse [or soon will see it] as expenses increase while the subsidizing is locked in and doesn't increase. Empty shelves develop. Surely they also say "it's better than nothing" . Since there are food deserts I can't be totally against it in rural areas.

In a city, we are talking not about eliminating a desert but just providing lower prices, right? This is totally different, and I am sticking to my prediction that the subsidizing will not keep up with costs , leading to it being a joke in the end after starting out OK

There are food deserts in cities too. I don't know the definition offhand, but no groceries stores within X miles or X time traveled of a neighborhood (and in cities many people don't have cars so if it's not close it is even harder to get there.)

Regardless of why a neighborhood or town does not have an open market, if there is not one, the City should make one. It's not about lower prices, it's about being able to buy good (prices are often comparable to private markets, since the stores do need to make enough to fund themselves.)

Quote: Gandler

There are food deserts in cities too. I don't know the definition offhand, but no groceries stores within X miles or X time traveled of a neighborhood (and in cities many people don't have cars so if it's not close it is even harder to get there.)

Regardless of why a neighborhood or town does not have an open market, if there is not one, the City should make one. It's not about lower prices, it's about being able to buy good (prices are often comparable to private markets, since the stores do need to make enough to fund themselves.)

If they open here is what will happen. Glowing news reports about them, claims they are working. Then they will get shoplifted to death. Graft from the inside as well. They will be money sinks. Then when they try to close them there will be news reports on how mean it is to do so.

Bad idea in a big city.

Sliwa got 7%
ROTFL
One of the worst candidates in the history of NYC
Is there any NYC republican candidate that's done worse in the history of the city
7%
Did anybody see his speech after losing
Total furious meltdown
He couldn't even have the decency to congratulate his opponent
Just a lot of angy screaming and ranting
7%
Republicans in reality just gave away the election
Republicans claim Harris was a bad candidate barely losing by a few points
Sliwa says hold my beer losing by 43 points
ROTFL

Quote: terapined1

Sliwa got 7%
ROTFL
One of the worst candidates in the history of NYC
Is there any NYC republican candidate that's done worse in the history of the city
7%
Did anybody see his speech after losing
Total furious meltdown
He couldn't even have the decency to congratulate his opponent
Just a lot of angy screaming and ranting
7%
Republicans in reality just gave away the election
Republicans claim Harris was a bad candidate barely losing by a few points
Sliwa says hold my beer losing by 43 points
ROTFL

In pro wrestling Sliwa would be known as a ‘jobber’. Never a chance to win. But taking the punches so a ‘real’ candidate doesn’t take them. If he really cared about NYC and not his own personal star, he would have dropped out when Adams did. And endorsed Cuomo as the better choice amongst the two evils remaining. I still think Mamdani would have won.

I like elections like this where there is a clear difference between candidates. New Yorkers resoundingly chose what Mamdani was selling. As Geno repeatedly opines…. You get the day you voted for.

Quote: terapined1

Sliwa got 7%
ROTFL
One of the worst candidates in the history of NYC
Is there any NYC republican candidate that's done worse in the history of the city
7%
Did anybody see his speech after losing
Total furious meltdown
He couldn't even have the decency to congratulate his opponent
Just a lot of angy screaming and ranting
7%
Republicans in reality just gave away the election
Republicans claim Harris was a bad candidate barely losing by a few points
Sliwa says hold my beer losing by 43 points
ROTFL

If Silwa was smart or had political integrity he would have dropped out and told all Republicans and moderates to vote Cuomo. Sure he would be supporting a Democrat, but he had a 0% chance of winning (and everyone knows that.) Though even with all of his votes Cuomo still would be under Mandani.

Most New Yorkers are not democratic socialists: maybe one-quarter?

Which of course begs the question: How and why did Mamdani get elected?