NYC Grocers Sues Mamdani Over City-Run Grocery Stores
“The Defendants’ establishment of the municipal grocers, coming without any studies, threatens to further exclude immigrant and minority business owners from opportunities…”
The Multicultural Business Coalition (MBC) filed two lawsuits in the State Supreme Court in Manhattan against New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani over his plan to open city-run grocery stores.
In the first lawsuit, the nonprofit, which represents supermarkets, grocery stores, and bodegas, claims the grocery stores would primarily hurt minority-owned stores.
“There is no existing evidence that the Defendants have undertaken any studies and/or any serious analysis before its current arbitrary site selection, of the effect that said competition will have on businesses, many of which are owned by minority groups that are historically excluded by the City of New York from economic opportunities,” MBC states in the lawsuit.
Mamdani wants to build the one store in East Harlem, “in La Marqueta – a marketplace under the train tracks running over Park Avenue.”
The location directly affects stores owned by Hispanics and Koreans, which is the same reason why the city doesn’t allow Walmart stores:
For example, the NYC-GP La Marqueta site is surrounded by a considerable number of successfully run predominately Hispanic and Korean owned supermarkets, with whom La Marqueta will be in competition.
Therefore, many minority members of the MBC cannot compete with the municipal grocery stores, and therefore, will be put out of business resulting in further exclusion of minority groups that are historically excluded by the City of New York from economic opportunities.
The Defendants’ establishment of the municipal grocers, coming without any studies, threatens to further exclude immigrant and minority business owners from opportunities, for the same reason the City has long refused to allow Walmart to open any stores in the City of New York.
The Defendants’ municipal grocery stores have pledged to sell food items 30% below the market-rate, a rate the rivals or exceeds Walmart discounts.
MBC argues in the second lawsuit that the city lacks authority to create these stores.
Mamdani hopes to open all five stores by the end of his term in 2029.
The first store should open in “the Hunts Point neighborhood in the Bronx in 2027.”
Mamdani has not revealed the locations for the stores in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
No matter whom the the New York City-run stores may or may not harm, the City should not be conducting such operations.
Government has a proper set of responsibilities and roles. The operation of grocery stores is NOT one of them.
“That government is best which governs least” is a famous political motto popularized by Henry David Thoreau in his 1849 essay Civil Disobedience.
Variant, “That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves.”
Bodega owners should shop at the municipal stores to restock their own shelves.
No doubt commuters from out of town will shop there also.
I anticipate city run grocery stores will have low stock on lots of items.
Do you forget that Mamdopey has decreed that IDs will be required to prove you live in New York City before you are allowed to shop in any of the city run grocery stores? Out-of-towners and non-residents will be barred from the grocery stores.
If NYC residents are required to show IDs to prove you live in New York City before they are allowed to shop in any of the city run grocery stores, but I have a relayed question. Will they be allowed to register and vote in the new DSA run grocery stores?
No, he hasn’t. The head of the Economic Development Corporation threw out a vague idea that there might be “something like a library card” for regular customers. Neither she nor the mayor ever mentioned ID.
Remember that we’re talking about a project that has yet to even get off the ground. They’re hoping to get the first store open some time next year, and who knows whether they’ll even manage that. They haven’t even started seriously thinking about practical questions like this, let alone have solid plans. The idea circulating that there was a concrete policy of requiring ID never had any truth to it at all.
I predict that the city run grocery stores will be chronically out-of-stock of all the basic necessities that people need. No milk, eggs, butter, bread, fresh fruits and vegetables, toilet paper and etc. Just aisles of empty shelves and cooler cases and the promise that they might have something tomorrow.
EoT
On the other hand, it’s one way to get rid of Bud Light.
Bud light won’t sell even with a 30% discount.
It’s as if the New Yorkers who voted for this want the Soviet-lite grocery experience.
I admire the fighting spirit behind the lawsuits, but I would not get my hopes up. The one true god of the credentialed morons and government-subsidized parasites who run NYC is Communism, and they will allow no other gods before it.
This should be better than professional wrestling. One whistle from a New York City union can stop an entire neighborhood.
The post doesn’t say what the grounds are for the lawsuits.
The undoubted fact that the plan, if implemented, will hurt existing businesses shouldn’t in itself be reason for a court to prevent it. Certainly the ethnicity of those business owners shouldn’t be relevant. It’s surely true that the city did not conduct any studies or analysis, but what law says it has to?
The second suit says that “the city lacks authority” to do this, but what authority does it need? Is there something in the city charter that limits what it can do?
That running grocery stores is not a proper role for government is a philosophical statement, one I totally agree with, but it’s not a legal principle.
It’s racial discrimination of course; see the filing from the red link. Essentially they are using the Democrats own petards against them.
“It is beyond debate that the municipal grocery stores, five (5) in total, openly compete with grocery stores at large, including members of the MBC, who are members of groups historically discriminated against, and who run grocery stores barely making profits, in some instances not operating in the red.
The city used the harm to minority owned businesses as an excuse to keep Walmart out of the city.
The exceeding authority is not exactly that – but proper impact studies were not undertaken, making the actions “arbitrary and capricious”
Here, the Respondents, having failed to study the discriminatory effects of the underlying municipal grocery stores, have exceeded the scope of any municipal authority.
(31) Furthermore, it is clear that the Respondents, despite pursuing a seemingly noble ambition, have, nonetheless, acted without sound basis in reason, and without a study without regard to material effects of further historical exclusion.
Both the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) have sections dealing with disparate impact of economic policies. It can be said that if you have a program that affects minority businesses more than other businesses, that would be a disparate impact.
Section 103 of the City Charter limits what City funds can be spent upon.
A cursory reading of the sections shows there is nothing that allows for retail operations of anything such as a grocery store.
Section 105 is similar, allowing for goods and services to be contracted for, but not allowing the City to do retail directly.
On one side these stores will be dreary, lots of empty shelves with very occasional very low quality product, vs it’s going to steal business from successful capitalist ventures. I’m torn.
Mamdani is not American and it shows in his backing of this anti-American project.
What will Mamdani come up with next in support of his grocery store project? Paid memberships to go along with the ID requirement–Costco-lite?
There was never any ID requirement.
It’s a government project so of course it’ll be a disaster, but only time will tell how bad a disaster it’ll be.
we are the govt. comrade we have
all the authority we need ….
we have your best interest at heart.
Generally cities do have all the authority they need to do whatever they think proper, subject only to their own charter and state law. Unlike Congress they are not limited to a list of enumerated powers, unless their own charter or state law says so.
The New Yorkers who patronize bodegas will continue to patronize bodegas because they are CONVENIENT.
Exactly. Pay a dollar more for a bagel when you want one or wait in line overnight for the discounted bagel that will surely be gone when you get to the front of the line.
A bagel in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Pshaw. Olive Garden has unlimited breadsticks,
Assuming these stores even get off the ground, what will the NYC position be regarding shoplifting from these stores (especially given the positions of some of his allies that shoplifting is a biological necessity)?
Between people gaming the system to get products at the subsidized cost and then resell them (and probably use intimidation to keep others from buying so that they can get more), and the usual NYC shoplifting crowd running rampant, this incredibly bad idea is going to crash and burn, spectacularly.
I skimmed the complaint, without getting a clear sense of what the compelling arguments were; could be I missed the significance of the referenced law.
Regardless, it seems there should be various civil rights and common law aspects –
– “unfair competition” insofar as NYC (not clear what legal structure of the “grocery business” operations will be) will not operate “its stores” as for profit, and it does not appear there is any intent to cloak them as “welfare” or “charitable” operations. As well, NYC has no capital constraints regarding its ability to operate without regard to the cumulative losses it will incur;
– “predatory pricing” based on / continuing the above observations the intent is to discriminate against individual proprietors and small businesses on the basis of “below market (or cost), non-competitive pricing”, for the sole purpose of discriminating in favor of an “as yet” unidentified “favored group”; how will that group be identified … by income, location, race, religion, … ? (What form of ID(s) will be required and acceptable ?);
– “tortious / intentional interference” in the business relationship among existing “for profit” stores and their existing and potential customers. The intent to destroy through unfair competition existing groceries and replace the same with “government operated” commissaries of limited and highly selective choices;
– “establishment of religion” , i.e., favoring or disfavoring one or more religious or non-religious, or ethnic or racial communities will be avoided how ? How will the chosen store sites be selected ?;
– …
Will the “mamdami stores” (only) accept SNAP & similar benefits ? Will the stores qualify to process such benefits, and what if they are not so qualified by the federal government ?
Will the “mamdami stores” carry both “kosher” and “halal” offerings … vegetarian fare required in Jainism and Buddhism ?
What other offerings will or will not be available ?
Will prepared food and raw meat and fish be processed on site ? Where will religious slaughter or preparations be supervised ?
Will pork products be offered or precluded to comply with various religions’ edicts ?
Again, it occurs to me that the compelling arguments in the complaint were not clearly stated.
Leave a Comment