4 ms·

Seems like it would be better to subsidize a local grocery store in these food deserts regions.

by pkaye 5y ago

clairity 5y ago
there's really no vacant infill in south LA unfortunately, and despite it's bad rap, commercial rents in the area are nearly as inflated as everywhere else in LA. we really need to structurally discourage unproductive economic activity (like rents) to get better outcomes for all.
- offtop5 5y ago
  Or people can just leave la. The idea that were all on this team together trying to find solutions is naive, you need to do what's best for yourself and your family
  - s5300 5y ago
    The idea of literally being forced out of where you were born and raised due to richer transplants isn't particularly the best thing (in a figuratively first world/developed country that is)
    - offtop5 5y ago
      For all of human history people have had to move to where they can feed their kids. The smart people are leaving, of course if you want to stay in LA and struggle your entire life you're free to
      - s5300 5y ago
        While this may be somewhat true, you seem to be misunderstanding the premise of living in the US
        offtop5 5y ago
        How ? My ancestors migrated from other parts of the US to California. If you want to survive you need to move.
- burlesona 5y ago
  There’s no reasonable way to have property rights and not have rents. Over time, property rights have proven to be one of the most beneficial elements of systems that efficiently allocate resources and produce wealth for all, so eliminating them is a bad idea. What we need is to fix corrupt local governments that prohibit the supply of new real estate via redevelopment and densification. Having lived in Houston for a while, I saw first-hand how different things are when there’s a robust competitive market with new supply constantly added to (mostly) keep up with demand. If you do a poor job as a landlord you’ll go out of business fast. Anti-trust, anti-monopoly reform is what we need most, and no more regulatory capture. Perhaps compared with more efficient redistributive measures like the negative income tax or land value tax.
  - tomnipotent 5y ago
    Rent, as a percentage of income spent, has increased more for American's than almost all other expenses in the past sixty years. By 2015, more 38% of renter households were spending 50% or more of their income on rent. That sounds horribly unproductive to me.
  - clairity 5y ago
    property rights and economic rents have no such entanglements. you may be conflating the common definition of rent with the economic definition. economic rent is that which is above and beyond reasonable maintenance and service costs. providing well-kept housing does deserve (common) rent to landlords, but only for that productive part, not the act of holdng an asset while it inflates in value due to artifical constraints rather than value-producing activities. home values, for instance, can appreciate in value without (economic) rents, they'd just need to become more desirable in other ways, like making improvements (we need to drastically reduce code and zoning restrictions, and review, permitting, and legal delays to allow this in economically efficient ways). i'm absolutely in agreement about anti-trust/anti-monopoly enforcement/reform though.
burlesona 5y ago
Seems like food desert is a very relative/subjective term. The article mentions there being a major grocery store one mile away. On a recent trip to Atlanta I visited a neighborhood where there was no significant grocery store for more like a 5 mile radius. That’s quite a lot worse. And there are plenty of outer suburban/exurban locations where the a particular neighborhood may be 10 miles or more from the nearest grocery store. I think the defining characteristic here is the presence of a large population of lower income and lower car ownership (hence distance to a good grocery store being a greater difficulty). As far as subsidizing a local grocer, perhaps that’s a good idea, but I suspect that if the real problem is serving car-less urbanites then we don’t just need one big grocery store, but rather a number of smaller markets spread through the area so that it’s never a burdensome walk to get fresh food. This is how grocers used to operate. However, small grocery stores don’t have the same economics of mega stores, and inevitably charge more than supermarkets as a result. It’s not obvious to me that there’s a good way to define a subsidy such that walkable neighborhood markets can offer mega store prices - but only in low income neighborhoods that need the support. On the other hand, something like community markets and micro farms - if they’re run and organized by the people who live in the neighborhood - seem like a very positive development, since they are empowering people to save money / make some extra utilizing the resources they have and keeping the work and value creation inside their own neighborhood.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Yeah, the other thing is that these food desert studies fail to take into account ethnic differences. For example, hispanic corner stores often basically are a mini grocery store, with fresh produce and stuff. They are not the equivalent of a 7-11. But these studies often only count the Safeways and Albertsons. And plus, I grew up close to these areas and was often in South LA, and they're not food deserts. I have no idea what people are talking about. There are grocery stores everywhere. Another strategy they use to fudge the data is not counting grocery stores that are not 'traditional'. For example, this map (http://www.povertyusa.org/stories/homelessness-food-deserts-los-angeles http://www.povertyusa.org/stories/homelessness-food-deserts-...) has a food desert in Pico Rivera that contains a Food 4 Less.
  - 5y ago

Seems like it would be better to subsidize a local grocery store in these food deserts regions.

by pkaye 5y ago

Seems like it would be better to subsidize a local grocery store in these food deserts regions.

there's really no vacant infill in south LA unfortunately, and despite it's bad rap, commercial rents in the area are nearly as inflated as everywhere else in LA. we really need to structurally discourage unproductive economic activity (like rents) to get better outcomes for all.

offtop5 5y ago
Or people can just leave la. The idea that were all on this team together trying to find solutions is naive, you need to do what's best for yourself and your family
- s5300 5y ago
  The idea of literally being forced out of where you were born and raised due to richer transplants isn't particularly the best thing (in a figuratively first world/developed country that is)
  - offtop5 5y ago
    For all of human history people have had to move to where they can feed their kids. The smart people are leaving, of course if you want to stay in LA and struggle your entire life you're free to
    - s5300 5y ago
      While this may be somewhat true, you seem to be misunderstanding the premise of living in the US
      - offtop5 5y ago
        How ? My ancestors migrated from other parts of the US to California. If you want to survive you need to move.
burlesona 5y ago
There’s no reasonable way to have property rights and not have rents. Over time, property rights have proven to be one of the most beneficial elements of systems that efficiently allocate resources and produce wealth for all, so eliminating them is a bad idea. What we need is to fix corrupt local governments that prohibit the supply of new real estate via redevelopment and densification. Having lived in Houston for a while, I saw first-hand how different things are when there’s a robust competitive market with new supply constantly added to (mostly) keep up with demand. If you do a poor job as a landlord you’ll go out of business fast. Anti-trust, anti-monopoly reform is what we need most, and no more regulatory capture. Perhaps compared with more efficient redistributive measures like the negative income tax or land value tax.
- tomnipotent 5y ago
  Rent, as a percentage of income spent, has increased more for American's than almost all other expenses in the past sixty years. By 2015, more 38% of renter households were spending 50% or more of their income on rent. That sounds horribly unproductive to me.
- clairity 5y ago
  property rights and economic rents have no such entanglements. you may be conflating the common definition of rent with the economic definition. economic rent is that which is above and beyond reasonable maintenance and service costs. providing well-kept housing does deserve (common) rent to landlords, but only for that productive part, not the act of holdng an asset while it inflates in value due to artifical constraints rather than value-producing activities. home values, for instance, can appreciate in value without (economic) rents, they'd just need to become more desirable in other ways, like making improvements (we need to drastically reduce code and zoning restrictions, and review, permitting, and legal delays to allow this in economically efficient ways). i'm absolutely in agreement about anti-trust/anti-monopoly enforcement/reform though.

burlesona 5y ago

Seems like food desert is a very relative/subjective term. The article mentions there being a major grocery store one mile away. On a recent trip to Atlanta I visited a neighborhood where there was no significant grocery store for more like a 5 mile radius. That’s quite a lot worse. And there are plenty of outer suburban/exurban locations where the a particular neighborhood may be 10 miles or more from the nearest grocery store. I think the defining characteristic here is the presence of a large population of lower income and lower car ownership (hence distance to a good grocery store being a greater difficulty). As far as subsidizing a local grocer, perhaps that’s a good idea, but I suspect that if the real problem is serving car-less urbanites then we don’t just need one big grocery store, but rather a number of smaller markets spread through the area so that it’s never a burdensome walk to get fresh food. This is how grocers used to operate. However, small grocery stores don’t have the same economics of mega stores, and inevitably charge more than supermarkets as a result. It’s not obvious to me that there’s a good way to define a subsidy such that walkable neighborhood markets can offer mega store prices - but only in low income neighborhoods that need the support. On the other hand, something like community markets and micro farms - if they’re run and organized by the people who live in the neighborhood - seem like a very positive development, since they are empowering people to save money / make some extra utilizing the resources they have and keeping the work and value creation inside their own neighborhood.

iammisc 5y ago
Yeah, the other thing is that these food desert studies fail to take into account ethnic differences. For example, hispanic corner stores often basically are a mini grocery store, with fresh produce and stuff. They are not the equivalent of a 7-11. But these studies often only count the Safeways and Albertsons. And plus, I grew up close to these areas and was often in South LA, and they're not food deserts. I have no idea what people are talking about. There are grocery stores everywhere. Another strategy they use to fudge the data is not counting grocery stores that are not 'traditional'. For example, this map (http://www.povertyusa.org/stories/homelessness-food-deserts-los-angeles http://www.povertyusa.org/stories/homelessness-food-deserts-...) has a food desert in Pico Rivera that contains a Food 4 Less.
- 5y ago