100
Dollar Stores are so bad for communities.
But only regulation will change that. Poor people aren’t going to drive further and pay more.
Tbf, DG is no longer cheaper on anything that the one independently owned grocery store, except milk (about $2 so that's worth it at $3.59)gallon), cookies (about a dollar) and crappy bread that's overpriced at any grocery store. The nearest Walmart nearly 50 miles away was more expensive than our one, locally owned grocery store, which is significantly more expensive than the FL about 15 miles away, although some items are pleasantly and surprisingly less expensive (wild caught Pacific salmon filet, about$10 less. You can tell it isn't farmed because of the taste and texture, but it's not sockeye. Idk what it is, but it's acceptable).
It’s never been about actually being cheaper, it’s about people thinking it’s cheaper so they shop there.
I know and I hate the stores I mentioned but it's whatever is available and affordable at any given moment. I'm working on remedying that but gesture to everything.
Family Dollar moved into these neighborhoods undercut the local stores forcing them out of business, so now these folks will have nothing. Fuck Family Dollar!
And Walmart.
I read this as family doctor, and was really confused
Can somebody help me out? The title of the article suggests it will provide insight into the cause of large grocery retailers avoiding certain communities but all I am seeing is talk about the what and nothing about the why. Did I miss it or did I just fall for clickbait?
It's a fluff piece. They briefly describe some of the circumstances but don't explore any reasons behind them.
The one conjecture they do make, "some supermarket leaders may perceive low-income urban areas — particularly those inhabited by people of color— as higher-risk due to concerns about crime, vandalism or social instability" is contradicted later in the article. They cite 2 cases where supermarkets opened stores in these neighborhoods and operated them (one of them for 5 years). They would have had no need to guess. They had the balance sheets, income statements and cashflow statements so they would have known the answers down to all these questions down to the penny.
That said, the answer is fairly obvious. Companies want money. Companies close stores when those stores aren't making them enough money. As the article states, these companies regularly open stores in poor neighborhoods, they just close them quickly. That strongly suggests that they think they might be able to make money and when they try the are unable to figure out how.
Sounds about right, not many stores can stay in business without turning a profit. This article pretty much says the same thing.
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/equity/chicago-grocery-store-deserts-south-west-sides
There’s a paragraph or two earlier on that touch on white flight
I'm not sure if we're reading the same article or some parts didn't load for you, but it seems full of whys:
Why the supermarkets left at the start
Why it's harder for them to come back
Why certain urban areas have made it more difficult for them to come back (things like zoning)
Why supermarkets themselves may not want to come back (interview with rep and speculation on violence)
Do these not help answer the question?
I get that it started 60 years ago with white flight and was exasperated 40 years ago with the consolidation of major changes, but why has their been no progress in correcting this? Why are zoning laws not being updated? Why do grocery store chains think inner cities are riskier? Why are new stores, like the referenced Whole Foods, not lasting? Why the focus on supermarkets instead of smaller neighborhood grocery stores that don't have the same logistic issues?
Those questions are not directed at you. They are more a representation my disappointment and disillusionment. Thank you for the reply.
I guess that I was hoping that there would be more current information and not just an article about how nobody cares so nothing has been done in more than half a century.
Whole Foods? In a low income area? I’m not questioning why they left but rather why they thought they’d get business in the first place.
Some of those are answered. Some of those are also answered in the piece they linked that talks about the zoning issues. And some of those don't have an answer beyond the obvious. I think the root of your unhappiness may lie with the few points that fit into that last category, but that's hardly the fault of an article that I wouldn't consider clickbait.
That said, studies have shown that some supermarket leaders may perceive low-income urban areas — particularly those inhabited by people of color— as higher-risk due to concerns about crime, vandalism or social instability
author Kameshwari Pothukuchi wrote that many supermarkets left mixed-income central city neighborhoods after civil disturbances in the late 1960s and 1970s, following customers who left those areas during “white flight” — and they never really returned. “Supermarkets have abandoned the inner city for suburban and exurban locations,” Pothukuchi wrote. “Which offered more land for parking, easier loading and unloading by trucks, convenient access to highways and arterials, and a development context for much larger stores.”
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
100 points (93.9% liked)
politics
18138 readers
3578 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS