3 Reasons Why Zohran Mamdani's City-Run Grocery Stores Will Fail
Zohran Mamdani’s plan to open government-run grocery stores would waste taxpayer money solving a problem NYC doesn’t have.
In the February/March 2026 issue of Reason, we explore Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani's policy goals and what they mean for New York City. Click here to read the other entries.
New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani says City Hall needs to get into the grocery business because New Yorkers are being "priced out" of private supermarkets. If elected, Mamdani says he'll spend $60 million opening one government-run grocery store in each of the five boroughs that would deliver healthier produce at lower prices. Here's why that's a terrible idea.
1. Mamdani-Marts Can't Compete With Discount Grocery Chains
Mamdani says that New Yorkers should think of city-run grocery stores as a "public option" that would deliver cheaper food by saving on rent and taxes. They also wouldn't need to make a profit. But profit margins for grocery stores are typically below 2 percent, and private grocers keep costs down by utilizing complex supply chains and economies of scale that Mamdani's stores won't have access to.
"The grocery business is really tough," says Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute. Private grocery stores provide "a vast variety of fresh frozen produce and other goods that everybody wants all the time, which is actually really difficult to do, particularly at reasonably low prices." In Kansas City, a government-run grocery store scheme lost nearly $900,000 just last year.
Lincicome says that if New York politicians want to give their constituents access to cheaper groceries, they could allow Walmart in the Big Apple. But New York politicians have used zoning regulations to keep the nation's largest and most affordable supermarket from opening a store anywhere in the five boroughs.
"Walmart is the absolute leader in supply chain efficiencies," Lincicome tells Reason. It "does this via a truly global network of warehouses and trucks and airplanes and all of these amazing things that shave off fractions of a penny off of every transaction." The idea that New York "could somehow try to replicate Walmart's global supply chain and entire business model is just laughable."
2. New York Has Fewer 'Food Deserts' Than Any Other City
Mamdani says his grocery stores will help address the problem of neighborhoods lacking easy access to fresh food. But Lincicome cites a recent study showing that "ranked the Big Apple the No. 1 U.S. metro area in terms of residents' 'equitable access' to a local supermarket."
"You can basically walk almost everywhere in New York City in 10 minutes and find a grocery store," he tells Reason.
Lincicome cites multiple studies showing that new grocery stores don't improve food access. But this is old news: In 2012, Reason covered three earlier studies that exploded the myth that adding neighborhood supermarkets improves the diets of their surrounding communities.
3. It's a Waste of Money
Mamdani said that he is going to pay for his grocery stores by "redirecting" $140 million worth of city funding that is already being spent subsidizing corporate grocers. As the Washington Examiner's Timothy Carney was the first to notice, that number is based on a misreading of a city website. The city subsidizes some private grocery stores at a cost of about $3.3 million per year. As some Bronx residents told Fox News' Kennedy in a video published by Reason, the city should focus instead on helping the homeless, dealing with "rats the size of cats," and cleaning "all of the needles on the street."
Direct assistance is a more cost-effective and less destructive way to support low-income households than government-run supermarkets, and it's something the federal government already does in abundance. Through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps, 1.79 million New Yorkers—20 percent of the city's population—receive help purchasing groceries each month.
As one New Yorker told Kennedy, "you're focusing on the wrong things, Mamdani."
This article originally appeared online. The web version has been updated to reflect the print edition.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Socialism will always fail. But it will be entertaining watching Gotham fall apart. They asked for it, hope they get it good and hard. FAFO.
Will buy some popcorn at a regular grocery store, sit back, and enjoy the show.
I'm putting together my Mamdani victory party. It's gonna be a gas!
Will it end with a bang?
As in Zyklon B?
Sure. I’m sure the Mayor Elect will have enough problem getting some of his Islamist constituents to drag Jews screaming off the street for his jihadist celebration.
They will be showered with praise by their new team D top man.
4. Because he’s a poopy head!! Tucker Carlson is right! Globalists want us to eat bugs!!! No homo, bro!!
Economic losses are not a failure in Momdami’s eyes. They are an excuse to get more government support.
Biggest thing will be if we can stop a federal bailout later...just let it fail.
Where will Wall Street move to? Will it move more online? Will it head to Texas like everything else?
Well yeah. This is obvious to most people, but it needs to be restated from time to time.
Mamdani is of you, open borders faggots like you helped bring he and his parents here.
So he is a direct result of the Pedo Jeffy Plan.
That would be "him and his parents".
Russian trolls not speak english good
Mamdani has other positions of interest to libertarians - he wants to legalize prostitution, I heard, and decriminalize drugs or not prosecute drug offenses, which would be good things.
I think city-run whorehouses and drug shooting galleries would probably be a lot more profitable than city-run grocery stores.
The purpose of government run stores is for them to fail and then blame that failure on their capitalist competitors shutting them out.
It is to get the people to angrily hand over total control of their access to food to the left.
And then to blame the right for their ensuing starvation.
And revolution.
The stores won't fail. They promised lower prices, and will subsidize them to operate at a loss to deliver on that promise.
It will be the competitors, that can't operate at a taxpayer-funded loss, that will get shut out, and Government Grocers™ will be the only option left.
They don't need revolution anymore.
Amusingly his plan includes not charging them property tax and pretending this is not a subsidy. The whole charade is like bringing an elementary school kid into a business and listening to him tell you how he would do it as if the professionals were just waiting for the kid's expertise.
Left wingers get double points when these are their plans and they criticize non-leftists for rejecting experts.
I'd question how this will not bring the entire concept of property taxes into significant legal dispute. You cannot charge property taxes on SOME grocery stores and on others.
We are in charge, we can do what we want.
"I am altering the deal. Pray I do not alter it any further."
Race preferences are both unconstitutional and statutorily illegal, but our corrupt judicial system found a way.
And a lot of academia.
An elementary school student is a better choice than Mamdani. Who should be in prison, or a landfill. Not running for office.
The city owned groceries are unlikely to put anyone out of business. They'll hire local unemployables because their core belief is that all people are the same, some just benefit from racism/sexism more than others. In real life though chronically unemployed people can't be made to care about customer service or work in general so the stores will be dirty, stock poor inventory, and immediately become known for rude employees.
And we know this because this is exactly what happened in other government run groceries none of which came anywhere near performing like private groceries much out out-performing them.
It's honestly bizarre he's winning on such a juvenile platform, which says more about left voters than it does anything else.
'...care about customer service or work in general'
I'm pretty certain that the Chicago Teachers Union has included those qualities in their broad and encompassing definition of "white supremacy."
Going forward, grocery stores will be state owned and the workers will be good and surly. And the shelves will be mostly empty which is fine because no one wants to work anyway.
There's also the plus that progressives like passing big things but have zero interest in actually doing the work to make them work.
The Enron of political ideologies.
The stores won't fail. They promised lower prices, and will subsidize them to operate at a loss to deliver on that promise.
It will be the competitors, that can't operate at a taxpayer-funded loss, that will get shut out, and Government Grocers™ will be the only option left.
ORLY?
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/city-run-kansas-city-grocery-store-closes-despite-millions-in-taxpayer-funding/
You've read the book.
WORD!
The only solution to the failures of big government is bigger government.
It is not about food, it is about power.
(and jobs for democrat voters/graft for democrat run companies)
Even worse; it's about idealism; the most dangerous ideology in the history of the world. The road can go straight to hell, but as long as the intentions are good, you should embrace it.
I think that’s how a sociopath like Jeffy justifies his evil and villainy here.
Didn't you know. 'Guns' make food for criminal-minds. /s
WHO is at the other end of that 'Gun' doesn't matter.
[WE] Identify-as RULES! /s
Does the mayor even have the authority to do any of the stuff he says he'll do?
I sure hope so. 🙂
You mean the free tranny hookers on Wednesdays?? Or free taco Tuesdays??
As one New Yorker told Kennedy in Reason's latest video, "you're focusing on the wrong things, Mamdani."
This is true if you presume his goal is making people's lives better, but we all know that's not the case. He wants to get elected and thus become a bigger part of the left-activist grift. Bernie Sanders is his model.
From what I've read of him, Lenin is his model and Bernie is little more than a useless idiot.
Bernie is one of the original "get rich through politics" people in America. Of course Bill and Hillary have taken that to a whole new level since then, but Bernie was a trailblazer in that respect.
A real American pioneer!
If he really cared he would mandate that all Michelin Star restaurants are free.
Where do you think he, and the rest of his politburo, plan to eat? They don't want the hoi polloi in there with them.
Proof he doesn't really care.
There are, or at least used to be, co-op groceries in NYC. I recall one at the fork between Sedgwick Ave. and Van Cortland Ave. West, associated with the co-op apartment house there or nearby.
A Sussex Co. NJ co-op in Newton closed a few years ago, after having been the place for many years to by health foods, organic foods, supplements, and toiletries. As interest in those items became mainstream, the place became superfluous as entrepreneurs opened their own stores.
So what are Mamdani's competitors saying? I am not a New Yorkers and so I am not seeing local adds, but from what I am seeing in Wisconsin it looks like the other candidates have no platform. Mamdani's platform may be wrong but it is a platform.
Platform? It's not 1960 [they you must wish it was].
No platform is superior to an objectively wrong platform.
Mamdani doesn’t have a platform. He has a bunch of nonsensical slogans.
Ultimately the local voters will get what they voted for and, likely, will get what they deserve. Except for a few Reason writers, everyone who understands what the ultimate fate of New York will be and saw it coming has already moved out of New York City.
1. It's failed everywhere else it was tried. 100% of the time. The government run grocers in KC that shuttered earlier this year looked amazingly similar to the ones they had back in the USSR.
Mamdani so going to be the poster child for an anti Marxist constitutional amendment.
No Marxist has a right to exist.
They should aim to replicate the true soviet experience. The only thing available is bread. It is hard. It is tastlesss. It already has mold on it some of the time (a bonus really). You have to dunk it in a glass of vodka to manage to swallow it at all. Good times really.
When you get government moldy bread you get your government antibiotics as a bonus. Healthcare for all!
Bread lines are a good thing!
Why are we pretending that any of Mamdani's "policies" are real or in good faith?
And by extension let's not pretend that any Marxist policies are real or in good faith.
But will they sell bacon?
Halal bacon?
Is that like ‘Oh praise Allah, I cannot believe it is not bacon!’.
Is heretical long pig halal?
This is dumb shit.
But, I think the gov grocers will be easier to shoplift in. For many voters, this is a plus.
Government bread, government cheese, government toilet paper that really irritates your 'roids. I mean, what's not to love, New York?
1 Reason Why Zohran Mamdani's City-Run Grocery Stores Will Fail
Socialism always fails.
Whether it is a failure or not depends on what Mamdani is trying to achieve. If he's trying to achieve the destruction of competitive capitalist for-profit private enterprise, then the "failure" of a state operated grocery store chain will succeed brilliantly in New York City. Reason writers have not yet learned, apparently, that words have meanings and that they should be used carefully to convey the meaning that the writer intends. In my mind, the only failure for Mamdani would be if New Yorkers who have not yet been totally converted to socialists see the program as a waste of money and it pushes them into the anti-socialist camp.
Three? I'll give you one.
1) Government can't run anything that doesn't end up as a goat screw although as a good little Islamicist I'm sure Mandami is quite familiar with screwing goats.
An American walks into a bar in somewhere in Ireland and sits next to a really old guy drinking a beer. And the old guy’s like, “Did you see that wall on your way into town?” And the guy’s like, “Yeah.” And the old man’s like, “I built that wall with my own two hands. But do they call me O’Grady the Mason? Noooo.” Then he’s like, “Did you see those cabinets on your way into the bar?” And the guy’s like, “Yeah.” And the old man’s like, “I build those cabinets with me own two hands. But do they call me O’Grady the Carpenter? Noooo.” Then he says, “Did you see the iron gates on the way into town?” And the guy’s like, “Yeah.” And the old man’s like, “I built those gates with me own two hands. But do they call me O’Grady the Smith? Noooo. But you fuck one goat…”
I heard a version of that one that ended "But you suck one dick..."
"Food Deserts" are largely created by the lack of law and order in an area where no reasonable person is willing to invest because there is almost a guarantee that they will lose their investment.
Government allows and fosters this condition when they don't enforce basic law and order. They pretend that they are being compassionate, but are only making a bad situation even worse and in many time much worse.
Governments are simply not agile enough to effectively operate a retail store. Any store operated by the government will be a waste of money and will quickly be unprofitable. It would be better to provide incentives for small operators that border a "Food Desert" to open up another retail location in the "Food Desert" and increase police presence near the new retail location. Maybe with a caveat that the small operator hires employee(s) from the local area so there is more likely acceptance by the local population.
Large operators should be allowed, and will come later without incentives, after the small operators eliminated the "Food Desert" and there is a better opportunity for a profitable return. Large operators would be more likely to be vandalized, more likely to runway and hide, shuttering their larger footprint stores than small operators who live in the area. Large operators are also less likely to be accepted in "Food Deserts" that smaller operators.
Government blocking large operators from investing is counter productive. While I would not subsidize large operators or even small operators, I would support incentives for small operators to expand into adjacent "Food Deserts". Otherwise increasing police presence to restore basic law and order (not chasing victimless crimes), and stop government protectionist interference by pushing away potential investors.
"Government allows and fosters this condition when they don't enforce basic law and order."
Unfortunately it's much worse than that. Not only does government fail to enforce law and order on the criminals, it frequently does punish innocent people who were properly defending themselves and others. Especially in the big cities with the worst problems, it is considered to be criminal if you carry a firearm or use it against a drug-addicted criminally insane violent "homeless" person who is attacking you. If you don't want to be arrested - or want to be "catch-and-released" a dozen times in the next two years, don't be a productive law-abiding person going about your lawful affairs; become violently insane street person instead.
We call the people that create these conditions ‘democrats’.
"Direct assistance is a more cost-effective and less destructive way to support low-income households than government-run supermarkets, and it's something the federal government already does in abundance."
Sure his plan is stupid and will fail, but is it now the libertarian position to support federal government welfare programs over local initiatives?
I have wondered this same thing myself, but I always try to remind myself that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the less bad. If direct assistance is the "less bad" here but there is zero chance of achieving the perfect, changing the minds of people on the fence is possibly not the worst strategy for libertarians, even the purists.
This article seems to be missing the point! The only pertinent fact in the whole thing is that a government operated grocery store elsewhere "lost $900,000" and it's pretty clear that socialists like Mamdani could not care less whether the government loses money. They could sell $10.00 tomatoes to "the poor" for $1.00 using tax money, losing $9.00 per tomato and claim a resounding success. The reason state operated retail outlets can't compete profitably with Walmart is because they don't have to. If anything, state operated enterprises undercutting even the most efficient private enterprises leads to destruction of the less profitable stores and reduces choice for the residents.