
Why New Yorkers Want Public Grocery Stores
The Democratic mayoral primary victory of New York City's Zohran Mandani has attracted global attention. The 33 year old from Queens won due to an impressive grassroots field campaign and a focus on economic justice issues. At the top of that agenda are publicly-owned grocery stores, which would be a first for the sprawling metropolis. But New York City already has thousands of grocery stores. Why would America's largest city want to road test such a plan?
Mamdani's proposal would establish a pilot program of municipal grocery stores with the goal of providing affordable groceries to New Yorkers. Recent polling from Data for Progress and Batul Hassan of the Climate and Community Institute (CCI) shows the idea resonating with New Yorkers. Two-thirds of New York City voters (66%) support a proposal to create municipal grocery stores, including a strong majority of Democrats (72%), as well as a majority of Independents (64%) and Republicans (54%).
Grocery costs are a top concern for New Yorkers. Climate and Community Institute/Data For Progress
The polling found that 85% of New Yorkers are paying more for groceries now compared to last year and 91% of New Yorkers are concerned about how inflation impacts what they pay to get food on the table. Four out of five households in New York report finding it harder to afford groceries over the last year. More than half of all families struggle to cover basic expenses.
These household economic strains are at crisis levels, and the private sector cannot solve for them in the current economic climate.
Two-thirds of New Yorkers polled (66%) support the creation of municipal grocery stores in New York ... More City. Climate and Community Institute/Data For Progress
Syndicated market data from NIQ shows that grocery prices have spiked over 32% since 2019. Prices have shot up even higher in many ultra processed food categories such as snacks, frozen foods and meat that make up over 60% of America's calories. Such categories are usually dominated by a handful of companies. Market concentration in the grocery industry has enabled processed food conglomerates to raise prices and generate enormous profits, all while actual food consumption has been stagnant since 2019, vastly increasing food insecurity.
According to CCI's Hassan, the resources needed to establish a public grocery program are infrastructure within the city's control. Grocery store planning and rollout would be driven by communities, incorporating the food preferences of people in the neighborhoods.
Some grocers have expressed skepticism at the idea, including the billionaire owner of Gristedes and D'Agostinos, who has threatened to close stores.
But publicly owned grocery stores are quite common and already exist at scale—in the U.S. military.
Every branch of the military has its own public grocery system, called an exchange or PX, that provides goods and services for enlistees. These include groceries, commissaries, department stores, gas stations and convenience stores, the same services that many full service grocers provide for civilians. The exchanges provide basic consumable goods, tax-free, and generate over $4.6 billion in annual revenue across 236 commissaries. This size enables commissaries to leverage supply chain efficiencies at the level of any national grocery chain. If the PX were a U.S. grocery chain, it would rank in the top 20 by sales nationally.
How much of a stretch would it be to municipalize such the PX model, especially if there were a large scale, committed effort to build multiple locations quickly and create the efficiencies of scale to make it viable?
Exchanges keep their costs down by operating as cost (not profit) centers, with a 2-3% percent gross margin, while budgeting labor and administrative expenses, rent, occupancy and utility costs centrally and not through each operating unit. This math means exchange prices can be 30% lower than typical retail prices, and saved military families and veterans over $1.6 billion in 2023.
By comparison, independent and specialty grocers typically run at 35-40% gross margins, while national chains such as Walmart and Kroger run at 22-25%, all to cover their costs and generate a thin profit margin, usually 2-5% of sales. Lower costs and massive profits are the result of massive sales volumes that give bigger chains market power with suppliers, especially due to lax enforcement of antitrust laws such as Robinson Patman. This is also why smaller independent grocery operators, such as those that dominate the New York Metro area, typically have higher prices and high operating costs. Like a post exchange, a civilian-facing public grocery option could take some of these costs out of the consumer price equation.
FT. BELVOIR, VA - MAY 31: Commissary at Ft. Belvoir in Ft. Belvoir, VA. (Photo by Bill O'Leary/The ... More Washington Post via Getty Images) The Washington Post via Getty Images
Military exchanges still rely on the same supply chains as the private sector, stocking familiar brands and products. For example, the wholesaler SpartanNash, which was just acquired by C&S Wholesale, is a large supplier to military exchanges. A network of New York City public grocery stores could leverage city purchasing power to negotiate strong wholesale contracts and keep markups low, as well as buying food directly from local growers and producers in the Northeast.
And public grocers could require vendors to meet values-based purchasing standards, such as those being implemented in New York City's public schools. Such standards emphasize healthier, whole food options, fair wages for workers, environmental impacts and diversifying supply chains. In South Korea, such public investment in 'precautionary' supply chains ensures that public institutions have access to healthy, safe and sustainably grown products. In New York City, it could mean healthier options are also the most affordable, turning typical grocery value chains on their head.
Public grocery stores could therefore operationalize the Right To Food, an idea supported by over 80% of Americans.
A public grocery option would not be a utility, which would imply a monopoly. New York would still have a thriving and diverse grocery sector, from Food Bazaar to Trader Joe's, to thousands of immigrant-owned bodegas, even Gristedes- if they want to stay open. Nor would it be a charity vehicle, dependent on donated or lower quality products from grocers, wholesalers and processors.
A public grocery sector could instead be a backstop, a vital public service and an expansion of the safety net in the tradition of the New Deal, one that bridges affordability and access for cash-strapped New Yorkers. With the Trump Administration delivering a one-two-three punch of raising grocery prices through tariffs and trade wars, sharply cutting back on SNAP food assistance and not enforcing antitrust laws to ensure fair competition, a public grocery option presents a proven, pragmatic and timely policy solution.
In an era of constant supply chain crisis and disruption, Mamdani's idea for public grocers is not any more radical than the Pentagon. But it has captured the imagination of hard-working New Yorkers hungry for change.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jesse Watters' daddy kink is showing (again), and Gavin Newsom is calling him out
Remember that brief moment in time where Tim Walz made waves by calling Republicans weird? It seems it's time to go back to that, considering the way Fox News host Jesse Watters keeps referring to California governor Gavin Newsom as "daddy." On Wednesday, the official X account for Newsom's press office tweeted a brief compilation of Watters dropping the d-word, alongside the caption, "Jesse, he's just not interested." Watters' obsession with "daddies" is well-documented. He frequently discusses politicians in terms of how daddy he thinks they are, including President Donald Trump, who he believes has "dad strength." He's also claimed Europe calls Trump "daddy," expressed his excitement about "dad" Donald Trump enacting mass deportations, and stated that Democrats "need to run a daddy" for president in 2028, among other weird, if not downright creepy, moments. Most recently, Watters had Florida governor Ron DeSantis on to complain about all the time Newsom allegedly spends on social media mocking Trump rather than doing his job, as if none of them are familiar with the concept of social media managers. For some reason, one of the chyrons across the screen at the time read "Dems Look For Big Daddy Energy." Newsom himself (or, you know, a social media manager) hopped on X Thursday morning to chime in, "Jesse, please stop calling me Daddy. It's disturbing." This followed a Trump-style tweet that Newsom's office is becoming known for that elaborated on the obsession Fox News — and Watters specifically — seems to have developed with Newsom. The whole thing is absolutely absurd, but we live in a political climate where absurdity seems to triumph constantly over anything rational, so if Newsom wants to highlight that through this mimicry, then so be it. Trump's nonsense posts definitely deserve the mockery, and maybe it's about time Watters' daddy kink gets called out, too. This article originally appeared on Pride: Jesse Watters' daddy kink is showing (again), and Gavin Newsom is calling him out RELATED 15 of Gavin Newsom's most brutal roasts of Trump that have the left cackling & MAGA melting down 32 things straight people think are totally gay Fox News host Jesse Watters' hot take on husbands going grocery shopping backfires hilariously


CBS News
20 minutes ago
- CBS News
Newsom signs California redistricting plan that could tilt 5 House seats toward Democrats
California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday signed into law a contentious congressional redistricting plan, as state Democrats seek to counter a Trump-backed effort to add to the GOP's House majority by redrawing Texas' congressional maps. The new map — which still needs to be approved by voters — would shift five of California's Republican U.S. House seats to be more favorable to Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections. The legislation easily passed the Democratic-led Assembly and Senate on Thursday. After Newsom's signature, it will be added to the ballot on Nov. 4 for the voters' final say. That election is likely to be expensive and unpredictable given how quickly the effort has come together and how little time there is between the legislature's actions and voters starting to have their say. California Democrats insisted they had no choice but to undertake the new maps after President Trump intervened in Texas and asked Republican lawmakers to redraw the districts to preserve the GOP's razor-thin majority in the U.S. House. Following Newsom's declaration that he would redraw California's maps, several other states said they would undertake similar efforts. "They fired the first shot, Texas. We wouldn't be here had Texas not done what they just did," Newsom said at a signing ceremony Thursday. "We're neutralizing what occurred [in Texas] and we're giving the American people a fair chance." Although California Republicans have denounced the redistricting plan as a "tit-for-tat strategy," the state's Democrats on Thursday touted that the effort is different from Texas since it will be ultimately approved by the state's voters. "In California, we will do whatever it takes to ensure that voters, not Donald Trump, will decide the direction of this country," said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. "This is a proud moment in the history of this assembly. Californians, we believe in freedom. We will not let our political system be hijacked by authoritarianism, and today, we give every Californian the power to say no. To say no to Donald Trump's power grab and yes to our people, to our state and to our democracy." The Republican-led Texas House on Wednesday approved the new congressional maps after a two-week delay when Democrats left the state to deny a quorum to bring the measure to the floor. The measure now goes to the Texas Senate, where it is likely to pass. Shortly after the Texas House passed the maps, Newsom posted to social media: "It's on." When Texas first launched its redistricting effort, Newsom had vowed to redraw the Golden State's congressional districts to counter the Lone Star State's plan and neutralize any potential GOP gains. Newsom — who is widely seen as a possible 2028 presidential contender — sarcastically congratulated Texas GOP Gov. Greg Abbott on X, saying, "you will now go down in history as one of Donald Trump's most loyal lapdogs. Shredding our nation's founding principles. What a legacy." President Trump late Wednesday congratulated Texas Republicans for advancing the new maps, writing on social media that "Everything Passed, on our way to FIVE more Congressional seats and saving your Rights, your Freedoms, and your Country, itself." He also encouraged GOP-led Indiana and Florida to take on redistricting. The relatively rare mid-decade redistricting gambit comes as both parties prepare to face off in 2026 and has major implications nationwide. Republicans have a narrow majority at the moment, and Democrats winning back three seats in the 2026 midterms could be enough to flip control of the chamber if the lines used in the 2024 election were still in place. Redistricting in red states could change that dynamic significantly however, and with it the impact of the final two years on Mr. Trump's second term in office. Texas and California are the two biggest redistricting battlegrounds, but Mr. Trump has pushed similar efforts in GOP-led Indiana and Florida, and New York Democrats have floated redrawing their House map. The Republican-led state of Missouri could also try and redraw a Democratic district in the coming weeks, and new maps are also expected in Ohio, where a redraw brought about by state law could impact some of the red state's Democratic members of Congress. Earlier this week, former President Barack Obama acknowledged that he was not a fan of partisan gerrymandering but he backed Newsom's redistricting plan anyway at a fundraiser in Martha's Vineyard and on social media, calling it a "smart, measured approach." Less than 24 hours before California's scheduled vote, Newsom joined a press call with Democratic party leaders, urging support for his state's redistricting effort. "This is about taking back our country," Newsom told reporters. "This is about the Democratic Party now punching back forcefully and very intentionally." A draft congressional map unveiled by California Democrats late last week would heavily impact five of the state's nine Republican U.S. House members. It would redraw Reps. Doug LaMalfa and Kevin Kiley's Northern California districts, tweak Rep. David Valadao's district in the Central Valley and rearrange parts of densely populated Southern California, impacting Reps. Ken Calvert and Darrell Issa. And some more competitive Democrat-held districts could be tilted further from the GOP. There's no guarantee that Democrats will win in all five newly recast districts. Democrats hold large majorities in both chambers of California's state legislature. But some legal hurdles still lie ahead, and Republicans in the state have pushed back against the redistricting plans. Unlike Texas, California has an independent redistricting commission that was created by voters earlier this century. To overhaul the current congressional map, a constitutional amendment would need to be passed by a two-thirds vote in California's Assembly and Senate and be approved by voters in the fast-moving fall election. On Wednesday, the California Supreme Court denied a GOP attempt to stop the mid-cycle redistricting. California Republicans had legally challenged Democrats' efforts, claiming the state's constitution gives Californians the right to review new legislation for 30 days. But Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero said they "failed to meet their burden of establishing a basis for relief at this time." The GOP legislators who filed the legal challenge told CBS News the ruling is "not the end of this fight," vowing to keep fighting the redistricting plan in the courts. In a phone interview with CBS News on Wednesday, California Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones, a Republican, condemned Newsom's redistricting efforts. "This whole process is illegal from the beginning and violates the current California Constitution," Jones said. "The voters spoke with a loud voice in 2008 and 2010 that they were taking this process out of the politicians' hands and putting the responsibility into an independent commission." Democrats faced a flurry of questions from Republican lawmakers during hearings this week on the alleged lack of transparency in the drafting of these maps and the financial implications of the Nov. 4 special election. "If we're talking about the cost of a special election versus the cost of our democracy or the cost that Californians are already paying to subsidize this corrupt administration, those costs seem well worth paying at this moment," said Democratic state Assemblyman Isaac G. Bryan. Democratic lawmakers and Newsom have repeatedly emphasized that these redistricting efforts would not get rid of the independent commission and that the new maps he's hoping to put in place will be the lines used through the 2030 election. The commission would go back to drawing the state's congressional maps after the 2030 census, according to Newsom, who says this is only being done as a response to Mr. Trump and Texas' redistricting. That notion was rejected by Jones, who said: "Growing up, I was taught two wrongs don't make a right, so no, it is not justified." Anne Bryson contributed to this report.


Buzz Feed
22 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
Hannity's Ironic Critique Of Newsom Goes Viral
Sean Hannity's attempted slam of California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) was irony defined for many of the Fox News host's critics. Fox News On Wednesday, Hannity devoted several minutes of his prime-time show to attacking Newsom, who has recently taken to trolling Donald Trump on social media by mimicking the president's bombastic and combative tone. Fox News Top Trump ally Hannity denounced Newsom, a potential 2028 Democratic presidential contender, as a 'radical' whose policies had wrecked California and dismissed his Trump impersonations as 'embarrassing.' Fox News Then came the line that went viral: 'I have a point. Results matter. A new performative, confrontational style. Maybe it wins you points with the loony, radical base in your party. But America is not going to vote for that record.' Fox News You can watch the full clip here: Hannity: A performative confrontational style—maybe it wins you points with the loony radical base in your party but America is not going to vote for that record. — Acyn (@Acyn) August 21, 2025 @Acyn / Fox News / Via Critics pounced on the remark, arguing it sounded more like a description of Trump — and Hannity himself — than of the governor. The irony of not knowing what a mirror is. — Truthstream Media (@truthstreamnews) August 21, 2025 @truthstreamnews / Via That's rich coming from Hannity, a guy whose entire career is built on performative confrontation. It's like McDonald's telling you not to eat fast food. He's out here critiquing 'loony radical bases' while serving as the maître d' at the all-you-can-eat grievance buffet every… — Nate Lichtman (@27KeysToTheRace) August 21, 2025 @KeysToTheRace / Via I R O N Y 😂 — jp (@ChefjparkJohn) August 21, 2025 @ChefjparkJohn / Via Is their audience that unaware? — 𓂀 𝕨𝕙𝕒𝕥𝕖𝕧𝕖𝕣 𓂀 (@marysupoppinz) August 21, 2025 @marysupoppinz/ / Via Irony is dead. — Jason P. (@JasonPYYC) August 21, 2025 @JasonPYYC / Via Hannity should know better, since he's part of the loony radical base of the party which elected just such an antagonistic, confrontational person President. — Robert Firsching (@robfirsching) August 21, 2025 @robfirsching / Via