logo
Zohran Mamdani wants to build government supermarkets. America already has them

Zohran Mamdani wants to build government supermarkets. America already has them

CNN30-06-2025
Zohran Mamdani, the favorite to become New York City's next mayor after winning the Democratic primary, has a contentious plan to create a network of city-owned grocery stores. But it's less radical than critics portray, some food policy and grocery industry experts say.
Mamdani has proposed five municipally owned stores, one in each New York City borough, to offer groceries at lower prices to customers with limited access to supermarkets. In some New York City neighborhoods, more than 30% of people are food insecure.
The proposal has been blasted as a ''Soviet' style disaster-in-waiting,' 'farcical' and 'economically delusional.' John Catsimatidis, the owner of New York City-based supermarket chain Gristedes, threatened to close stores if Mamdani is elected. (Catsimatidis is a two-time Republican candidate for mayor.)
But Mamdani is drawing on government-owned and subsidized models that already exist in the United States, such as the Defense Department's commissaries for military personnel, public retail markets that lease space to farmers and chefs, and city-owned stores in rural areas such as St. Paul, Kansas. Atlanta is opening two municipal grocery stores later this year after struggling to draw a private grocery chain. Madison, Wisconsin, and rural Venice, Illinois, also plan to open municipally owned stores.
'This is more common than people are aware of,' said Nevin Cohen, director of the City University of New York's Urban Food Policy Institute. 'There's a wide spectrum of food retail establishments that could be created by or with the support of city government.'
Mamdani has not released all the details of his plan yet, and it's not clear what role New York City would play in the opening or operation of grocery stores. Would it build stores? Lease them out to a private company or a non-profit? Would the employees be on the city's payroll?
Mamdani's campaign did not respond to CNN's requests for more details of the proposal.
But a government-owned supermarket 'concept is sound' and can take a 'variety of formats,' Cohen said. 'Rather than giving incentives to private supermarkets without the assurance of low prices, a city-focused program that puts affordability front and center is a better approach.'
Yet municipal-owned stores have recently closed in several towns, such as in Baldwin, Florida. Chicago also shifted its effort from building city-owned stores to a city-run public food market, despite a study showing stores were 'necessary, feasible and implementable.' These cities' struggles underscore the challenges of government stepping into the grocery business amid fierce resistance from the private sector.
Industry representatives say government-owned stores will compete with private businesses and unfairly disadvantage grocers, local bodegas and other stores in New York. If government stores drive out other food retailers, it would also hurt the problem it's trying to solve.
'This proposal seemingly could use taxes paid by business, and use that money to compete against said business, which is an alarming precedent to set,' said Michael Durant, the CEO of Food Industry Alliance, a trade association.
Privately owned grocery stores already run on slim 1% to 3% margins, according to industry estimates. Government stores would be able to offer low-cost groceries because they would not have to pay rent or property taxes, according to Mamdani.
'They will buy and sell at wholesale prices, centralize warehousing and distribution, and partner with local neighborhoods on products and sourcing,' the campaign said on its website. Many companies already buy from wholesalers, have centralized warehouses and partner with local communities, however.
His proposal would cost $60 million, Mamdani said in an interview on the podcast 'Plain English' released last week. Mamdani argued his proposal would be cheaper than an existing city program that provides tax breaks and subsidies for supermarkets to open in underserved areas, but does not include any requirements for food to be below certain prices.
In many cities, grocers and other retailers governments recruited have closed in low-income areas after their tax incentives expired or they struggled to make a profit.
'This is a proposal of reasonable policy experimentation,' Mamdani said. 'If it is not effective at a pilot level, it does not deserve to be scaled up. But I believe it can be effective. I think that there's far more efficiency to be had in our public sector.'
Advocates for independent grocers and small chains say that stronger antitrust enforcement would be a better solution to help lower food prices and spur competition.
But Errol Schweizer, a veteran of the grocery industry who publishes the newsletter 'The Checkout Grocery Update' and has written in support of a public grocery sector, said Mamdani's proposal would address a failing in the market. Government-owned grocery stores would not compete directly with bodegas and convenience stores, which typically do not sell fresh produce and meat.
'New York has a great grocery sector,' he said. 'It could be a backstop for cash-strapped New Yorkers.'
Other experts, however, say that for government stores in New York City to be successful, they must draw from customers with a wider range of incomes. This would help them maintain broader political support and offset bigger losses from lower-performing stores.
'A network of stores can be really effective if you're placing them in different areas. You're creating a chain of stores to support one another,' said Erion Malasi, the Illinois director of policy and advocacy at the non-profit Economic Security Project. He is working with Venice, Illinois, a historically Black community that received a $2.4 million grant from the state to open a municipally owned store.
Rural areas have often been the site of government-owned grocery stores in the past. It's harder for sparsely populated towns to draw a private chain, find a distributor to service the store and labor to operate it, and have a large enough customer base to sustain it.
But more cities are trying to open stores in neighborhoods with limited access. Cities can leverage their scale to buy from suppliers and city-owned land.
Atlanta recently approved $8.2 million in incentives to a small grocer to operate two stores on city land in low-income, predominantly Black neighborhoods. Azalea Market is set to open this year and also offer cooking demonstrations, nutrition workshops and other resources for families.
Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens told CNN that the city created tax incentives and low-cost land to draw national chains, but it couldn't find a taker.
'We said that if they're not going to help us build it, we'll build it ourselves,' he said.
Dickens believes government taking a role in offering affordable groceries is similar to investing in other public goods, such as housing, education and health care.
'We should be investing in the public good, from the urban farmer all the way to the independent grocer. People need to eat.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

3 Dividend Stocks to Hold for the Next 20 Years
3 Dividend Stocks to Hold for the Next 20 Years

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

3 Dividend Stocks to Hold for the Next 20 Years

Key Points General Mills is offering a historically high yield backed by a powerful and diversified food business. PepsiCo is a Dividend King with a high yield and iconic global brands. Hershey makes an affordable luxury that people will be willing to pay up for. 10 stocks we like better than PepsiCo › Remember one thing when you consider consumer staples makers: You "need" the products they sell. That's particularly true when it comes to food-focused consumer staples companies like General Mills (NYSE: GIS), PepsiCo (NASDAQ: PEP), and Hershey (NYSE: HSY). Here's why each one of these dividend stocks is worth buying and holding for 20 years, or more, right now. 1. General Mills is shifting with the times General Mills makes food products like cereal, snack bars, pet food, and baking products. It owns a collection of brand names that you likely know well, including Blue Buffalo and Cheerios. The brands and products it sells are staples in grocery stores and in consumer cupboards. It's highly unlikely that General Mills will suddenly go out of business anytime soon. That said, right now the company is facing some headwinds. Consumer buying habits are shifting, and some buyers are pulling back on spending. That has left General Mills' financial results weak. Sales and earnings fell year over year in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2025. The company's fiscal 2026 outlook was a bit weak, too. But management is doing what it can to adjust, including changing formulations to match current trends, adjusting its brand and product portfolio, and trying to keep a lid on costs. These are the right moves and, in time, they will likely lead to General Mills getting back on track. It always has in the past. While General Mills' stock is out of favor, you can buy it at an attractive 4.8% yield. That's near the highest levels in the company's history. If you like income and think long term, General Mills should probably be on your buy list today. 2. PepsiCo has industry-leading brands General Mills is a good company with industry-leading brands, but PepsiCo's brands stand out even more. It's the No. 2 beverage company and the No. 1 salty snack maker. It also makes packaged food products that compete with companies like General Mills. The problem for PepsiCo is that customer tastes are shifting, and it is out of step with its customers. The company is working on the issue -- it recently bought a Mexican-American food business and a probiotic beverage company. Both are more in line with current trends. Sure, PepsiCo's recent financial results aren't that great, and they lag those of its closest peers. It's OK -- that happens even to well-run businesses. PepsiCo didn't achieve Dividend King status by accident, and it has muddled through hard times before. It's highly likely that it will do so again. In the meantime, you can collect a historically high 3.9% dividend yield. If the dividend history here is any guide, you'll end up a long-term winner if you're willing to step in while the rest of Wall Street is selling. 3. Hershey's cocoa problem makes it hard to love Hershey is the most difficult story to appreciate here for two reasons. First, while it makes food, the most important product it sells is chocolate. That's not a necessity, even though people love the affordable indulgence. Second, the biggest headwind for the business is a shocking rise in the price of cocoa, a key ingredient in chocolate. Cocoa comes from trees, so it could take some time before high prices lead to changes in the industry. That's why investors have sold Hershey stock hard, leading to a historically high 2.9% dividend yield. Just how bad is it? Despite increasing prices and the expectation of sales growth in 2025, Hershey is projecting rising costs to lead to a roughly mid-30% drop in earnings in 2025. And given the nature of cocoa, the pain could linger for a bit. There's a good reason why investors are negative on the stock. But if you can stomach some near-term uncertainty, the long-term picture is likely to be continued and growing demand for the affordable luxuries that Hershey sells. You need and want what they make It is hard to suggest that chocolate, soda, or cereal are life necessities. You can certainly eat and drink other things. But these consumer staples giants have long delivered the food items that people want to buy. That will be just as true in one year as it is in 10 years or 20 years. The headwinds they face today aren't likely to change anything about the nature of these businesses, even if the companies do need to adjust to better align with current trends. The truth is that they've all done that many times before. Given the historically high yields on offer from General Mills, PepsiCo, and Hershey, buying and holding for decades is probably a good call for even the most conservative dividend investors today. Do the experts think PepsiCo is a buy right now? The Motley Fool's expert analyst team, drawing on years of investing experience and deep analysis of thousands of stocks, leverages our proprietary Moneyball AI investing database to uncover top opportunities. They've just revealed their to buy now — did PepsiCo make the list? When our Stock Advisor analyst team has a stock recommendation, it can pay to listen. After all, Stock Advisor's total average return is up 1,036% vs. just 181% for the S&P — that is beating the market by 855.09%!* Imagine if you were a Stock Advisor member when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $625,254!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,090,257!* The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 29, 2025 Reuben Gregg Brewer has positions in General Mills, Hershey, and PepsiCo. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Hershey. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 3 Dividend Stocks to Hold for the Next 20 Years was originally published by The Motley Fool

Trump says he 'had to' move nuclear submarines after 'threat'
Trump says he 'had to' move nuclear submarines after 'threat'

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump says he 'had to' move nuclear submarines after 'threat'

STORY: :: Trump says he 'had to' move nuclear submarines after a 'threat' from Russian ex-leader Dmitry Medvedev :: August 1, 2025 :: Washington, D.C. Security analysts called Trump's move a rhetorical escalation with Moscow, but not necessarily a military one, given that the United States already has nuclear-powered submarines that are deployed and capable of striking Russia. Medvedev on Thursday said Trump should remember that Moscow possessed Soviet-era nuclear strike capabilities of last resort, after Trump had told Medvedev to "watch his words." He did not specify what he meant by "nuclear submarines." Submarines may be nuclear-powered, or armed with nuclear missiles. It is extremely rare for the U.S. military to discuss the deployment and location of U.S. submarines given their sensitive mission in nuclear deterrence. The U.S. Navy declined comment. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

3 Reasons Stablecoins Are Still a Risky Investment Choice
3 Reasons Stablecoins Are Still a Risky Investment Choice

Yahoo

time13 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

3 Reasons Stablecoins Are Still a Risky Investment Choice

Key Points Stablecoins are gaining a lot of attention as an alternative to U.S. dollars. But a lot of those coins aren't actually backed by U.S. dollars. They're also not designed to beat inflation or the market over the long term. 10 stocks we like better than Tether › Stablecoins are gaining a lot of attention as an alternative to traditional cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum. These coins, which are usually pegged to real-world assets like fiat currencies or gold, are designed to generate stable long-term returns. The most popular stablecoins are Tether (CRYPTO: USDT), USD Coin (CRYPTO: USDC), DAI (CRYPTO: DAI), TrueUSD (CRYPTO: TUSD), and PayPal USD (CRYPTO: PYUSD), all of which are pegged to the U.S. dollar. The issuers of these stablecoins back up their coins with their own reserves of cash, cash equivalents, and other assets. These USD-backed stablecoins try to keep their price at $1. They can be held without a bank account, help people protect their savings in countries with currency devaluation issues, and facilitate faster and cheaper cross-border transfers than U.S. dollars. USD stablecoins are also widely used in decentralized finance (DeFi) apps to pay out rewards, establish collateral for loans, and trade assets without a conversion to a fiat currency. They can act as a bridge currency to help crypto traders quickly switch between volatile assets. These stablecoins might initially seem a lot safer than other cryptocurrencies, but they're not risk-free investments. Let's review the three risks for stablecoins you should be aware of. 1. Not all stablecoins are backed by real-world assets Most USD-collateralized stablecoins like Tether and gold-backed stablecoins like Tether Gold (CRYPTO: XAUT) are pegged to physical assets. Tether holds a mix of cash, U.S. Treasuries, precious metals, and other cash equivalents. Tether Gold directly holds gold reserves. But there are two other types of stablecoins that are pegged to much riskier assets: crypto-collateralized coins, which are pegged to other cryptocurrencies; and algorithmic coins, which rely on automated computer programs to control the supply and keep their prices stable. For example, DAI is a crypto-collateralized coin that holds a mix of Ether, Tether, Wrapped Bitcoin, and Lido Staked Ether instead of actual U.S. dollars or Treasuries. By only holding cryptocurrencies, it doesn't rely on any custodian banks to hold fiat currencies. But it's not fully decentralized, since it's still holding a lot of Tether (which is backed by actual U.S. dollars), and a crypto crash could reduce the value of its collateral and weaken its peg to the U.S dollar. Many algorithmic stablecoins, like TerraUSD, crashed when their automated programs couldn't stay pegged to the U.S. dollar. Yet some smaller stablecoins are still trying to stay pegged with their own algorithms. If those opaque algorithms fail, those smaller stablecoins could quickly fizzle out if they're not backed by other assets. Therefore, investors shouldn't assume all stablecoins are "stable" because they've been holding steady at $1. Instead, they should see what these issuers are actually holding as their collateral, and whether they can be trusted to stay firmly pegged to the U.S. dollar. 2. They're exposed to regulatory headwinds Many stablecoins have sprouted up during the past few years, but they could be cut down by much tighter government regulations in the near future. Those regulators could scrutinize their underlying reserves and usage in cross-border remittances. They might even ban the riskier algorithmic stablecoins. Those government regulators could also consider stablecoins to be a threat to central banks, and use tighter licensing, auditing, or reporting requirements to subdue their growth. That oversight would undermine the usefulness of stablecoins as an alternative to U.S. dollars. 3. They aren't designed to beat inflation Most traditional investments, like stocks, are aimed at beating inflation. For example, the S&P 500 has generated an average annual return of 10% since its inception in 1957. In that context, stablecoins aren't good long-term investments because they're designed to merely match the value of the U.S. dollar -- which will inevitably decline over the long term. So for capital preservation, you would be better off parking your cash in a risk-free CD or T-bill that pays a 4% to 5% yield instead. The only way for stablecoins to beat inflation is if they're lent out on other crypto platforms to earn interest. Those platforms still pay double-digit annual percentage yields, but you're taking on a lot of counterparty risk for that yield. Several of those platforms -- including Celsius, Voyager, and BlockFi -- collapsed in 2022 and wiped out their lenders' stablecoins. Should you buy stablecoins right now? Stablecoins might be a viable way to preserve your capital, execute fast and cheap cross-border transfers, and smoothly invest in crypto platforms or apps. But they're not inflation-beating investments and they face a lot of risks that won't affect the U.S. dollar. Investors should clearly evaluate those risks before jumping on the bandwagon. Should you buy stock in Tether right now? Before you buy stock in Tether, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Tether wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $625,254!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,090,257!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,036% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 181% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 29, 2025 Leo Sun has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Bitcoin and Ethereum. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 3 Reasons Stablecoins Are Still a Risky Investment Choice was originally published by The Motley Fool

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store