this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
139 points (97.9% liked)

News

22896 readers
4162 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The mayor’s office says it would be the first major U.S. city to enact such a plan.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] stopthatgirl7@kbin.social -1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Is it “performative nonsense” because it’s Chicago, or was this city in Florida doing it years ago and this one in Kansas also “performative nonsense,” too?

[–] JasSmith@kbin.social -2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Why do you think these examples are analogous? The stores in the towns described in the articles you linked didn’t shut down because of poverty or crime. In the examples you provided, collective supermarkets seem to be a good fit. Contrast this with the Chicago mayor, who cites poverty. If people can’t afford food anyway, and the business is going to face sky high theft, the plan doesn’t make sense. Cut out the middle man and just send poor people food. It would cost far less than trying to set up supermarkets from scratch and running them at a loss in perpetuity. Plus it means helping poor people, rather than forcing them to shop lift if they’re hungry.

[–] Zaktor@sopuli.xyz 1 points 11 months ago

Lack of shopping opportunities and an inability to pay for food are two separate things. They may often co-occur, but just sending food too poor people doesn't solve food deserts.

And separately from that, poor people deserve to be able to look at their produce, buy stuff last minute, or browse and buy what strikes their fancy too. All the reasons everyone else uses supermarkets should be available to poor people as well.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

If the stores are government run, there is no profit motive. That means lower prices, which means more accessibility for the people who need it.

And who will be sending poor people food? Let me guess, we need to leave it up to churches and charities? Lol

Look at you tripping over yourself to lick the boot. Sad.

[–] JasSmith@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If the stores are government run, there is no profit motive. That means lower prices, which means more accessibility for the people who need it.

If these stores are going to be run at a loss anyway, why waste enormous sums of money on premises and other costs when they could just start food banks and give people the food directly? Or, as I suggest above, the government could send people food directly.

I’m suggesting that we give people free food and I’m the boot licker? Okay Bezos.

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

why waste enormous sums of money on premises and other costs when they could just start food banks

This runs into the problem of charity out-competing potential business ventures. Government subsidized private groceries, or public-private partnerships or just plain government run grocery stores can alleviate the problem of a food desert while still bringing the benefits of an active business to the area. The local government can increase or reduce its investment as needed, and it doesn't create a service that inherently can't be competed with by private business in a space that's already unprofitable/too risky to operate a business within

[–] JasSmith@kbin.social 0 points 11 months ago

This runs into the problem of charity out-competing potential business ventures.

But this is moot as the city is planning to run loss-making stores where private stores are non-viable. There is no risk of outcompeting businesses which aren’t even there. And if there is a concern of outcompeting private stores, running stores offering cheaper products than any private store could do so in the area would destroy those businesses just as effectively.

The decision has been made to entirely sacrifice any pretence of private enterprise in the supermarket space in certain areas in Chicago. I’m merely arguing that, given this decision, there are more effectively ways to use public funds.

[–] prole@sh.itjust.works -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

No, you're just pushing the tired old, "religious groups and charities should be feeding people, leave the government out of it" bullshit. It doesn't work.

[–] JasSmith@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

No, you’re just pushing the tired old, “religious groups and charities should be feeding people, leave the government out of it”

I’m literally saying the government should give people free food. You’re arguing with a straw man.

[–] No_Eponym@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 months ago

you're pushing the tired old... "leave the government out of it" bullshit.

They literally said government was the solution in the message above yours. Regardless of the merits of @JasSmith@kbin.social 's argument, you've mischaracterised what they've said and that isn't fair or productive for discussion.