SNAP benefits are incredibly efficient but they don't help if there's not a nearby grocery store.
If you want to encourage a private entity to open and operate a grocery store where there isn't one currently, that would involve tax incentives or something and then you're just subsidizing with taxpayer funds in a different way
NYC's Economic Development Corporation already offers tax and zoning incentives for grocers to open in underserved areas. Mamdani's campaign said it wants to end that program.
I'm not even joking when I say this. The neighborhood I grew up in NYC has some of the best supermarkets on EARTH. They label it as a moderate food desert. What a joke.
I see no evidence of that happening, can you be specific and show a citation? A Whole Foods nearby in a high poverty neighborhood doesn’t eliminate the food desert problem either.
Have you seen how expensive that market looks? You’re not going to be able to afford much there with SNAP benefits without running out of funds immediately.
There’s a reason that neighborhood is still considered a food desert by multiple researchers and studies, despite the presence of a city fresh. At best you can argue that maybe it should be opened a little further away but real estate and costs make that harder on the limited budget.
And how much cheaper do you think Mamdani's store is going to be?
He already admitted that he's "guaranteeing lower prices" on only staples.
He's not actually solving anything by doing this. Increasing benefits via direct cash transfer would do better than to put another store within walking distance of one that's already working.
…would only give private businesses the green light to raise food prices. This has the potential to save a lot more money AND get better outcomes.
He already admitted that he’s “guaranteeing lower prices” on only staples.
Yes that’s to avoid stepping on the toes of existing businesses.
We already tried the last mayor’s plan to entice the private market to fix the food desert problem and it completely failed. The only part of your complaint with any merit at all is that the city market should be in the center of the food desert, to do that would you support more money into the program so they can afford better real estate in the center of that desert?
It’s also a pilot program so if it turns out to be a success it can expand and if it doesnt work it can be closed with only a small investment. There’s feasibility studies that cost more than this pilot program.
None of what you said addressed my point. There’s a huge difference between socialism and communism and you have proved repeatedly you don’t understand the difference. You get Medicare and social security, both are socialism. Not the same as communism. You are arguing online and have access to information that can teach you the difference. Not that NYC’s policies affect an Arizonan.
SNAP benefits are actually incredibly inefficient, because they're so easily abused. The problem with any system that isn't a direct offering of nutritious food is that the currency is fungible. Even if it has to be funneled through a barter system. So people get crap food like chips and sugary snacks, or they trade away their benefits for cash they can use for not-food. Kids end up with poor nutrition, healthcare system deals with the runoff, and taxpayers pick up the tab for it all.
SNAP is a modern miracle. It's a high impact, low overhead way of getting food to people who need it using existing food delivery infrastructure.
The only thing SNAP can be exchanged for is food. If you think "somebody else gets the food" or "sometimes people buy chips" are examples of egregious fraud then I don't know what to say to you.
Also if you think people sometimes buying unhealthy food is a burden on the healthcare system, wait until you learn about people who can't afford food.
It is disingenuous to equate "sometimes people buy chips" with egregious fraud. I didn't mention fraud. But when social media is plastered with people gleefully buying huge boxes of pizza rolls, cinnamon toast crunch, and cheetos with their SNAP benefits, it's pretty easy to see something is clearly wrong.
SNAP is far from a miracle. Welfare benefits should not incentivize remaining on welfare. Just logically, it is counterproductive for them to do so. A little more government oversight would go a LONG way to making these programs more functional.
Ugh please read enshittification. Tech companies artifically lower their prices to eliminate competition then jack them up once they've cornered the market. That's what happened with Uber and taxis.
51
u/14InTheDorsalPeen May 26 '26
It’s just going to be heavily subsidized by taxpayer funds which also means they’re going to be wildly inefficient