Food deserts in our big cities? In a previous article we looked at the Law of Supply: That the provision of a good or service is a function of the ability and willingness of a producer to deliver a product. Most of us are familiar with ability. We have seen countless businesses fade into history because they lack the ability to survive. But willingness? That is another matter. It is far more mysterious, more metaphysical than scientific. One example of a lack of will is the exodus of retail stores from high-risk neighborhoods. At some point, businesses simply give up. In essence, if politicians are unwilling to provide a safe and orderly environment to conduct business, then more and more businesses are simply leaving.
But do they have to? Would it still be possible for remaining businesses to survive in this state of urban anarchy? In essence, if there is a will there is a way. But with each of the alternatives noted below, which of these would be attractive to you? If you were living in a major city, which of these alternatives would make you more willing to shop and more willing to remain in a city?
Why should we bother with this discussion? Previously, I discussed the claim that the exodus of businesses from city neighborhoods was creating “food deserts.” While this claim is debatable, there is some merit to it if you focus on a specific set of the urban community that has no car. This lack of mobility is quite common in our cities. In fact, one of the chief advantages of living in a full-featured city neighborhood is that almost everything is within walking distance. When a grocery store closes down, it places people who live in such circumstances at a considerable disadvantage.
And — being that this is America, what is one companies failure is another’s opportunity. Since the crime and anarchy remain, what is it that a business can do to better control their operations and uphold the safety of their customers and their employees?
Alternative #1 – The Costco model
In the past thirty years the superstore model has evolved, often called the “big box” store. What makes these stores unique is that they are based on membership. The dues essentially pay for the space, enabling retailers to market their wares at exceptionally narrow margins. Another element is what they offer is diverse, yet limited. And, finally, what they market is in large volume.
The problem with the open-retail model is, sad to say, the quality of the customer. If the “customer” is a thief, there is no reasonable hope that the open-retail model can continue. But if the customer is qualified through a membership, then things change considerably. Steal something from the store, their membership is canceled. Simple as that.
I have noticed that Sam’s and Costco have not been moving out of the big cities. They have operations in the center of Seattle, Chicago and New York City. The primary reason is that they are largely unburdened by the wave of shoplifting and the accompanying violence. Shoplifters simply cannot access these places of business unless it is a “flash mob” operation. Customers are screened when entering the building and their carts are checked when they exit.
As to the intuitiveness of traditional shopping, it has been my experience that you shape your shopping around members-only stores. If urban customers were limited to a members-only store, they would most likely adjust. My guess is that they would very much prefer shopping in these stores where responsibility is rewarded, and shopping is safe.
Would operators like Walmart and Target adopt a members-only model for specific stores? It is possible they would, but it would require that a retail model be developed and tested. Target, for example, which has a large presence in San Francisco, could re-open a store on a members-only model and see how it flies. It will require that they change the way they do business, which is not easy for a large corporation to entertain. The Costco model would be interesting to follow given that most retail stores sell their goods in small units, not bulk.
The drawback to Costco and Sam’s is that they are big-box (hard to transport groceries by bus or walking) and they are few in number. Stores like Target and Walmart are designed to operate over a smaller area. A members-only Walgreen would bring back the pharmacy, but the retail model that supports the pharmacy would require a drastic overhaul.
Alternative #2 – The Gated Shopping District
North of Kansas City is a huge shopping mall which is modeled after Main Street America. Rather than having a large building with small stores contained within, they have organized stores into a pedestrian-friendly town, where auto traffic is either limited or blocked out entirely. At first glance, and as some have commented, it involves more walking. But from my experience, there was no more walking than if you were shopping in a traditional mall setting.
Using this experience as a model, is it conceivable to have the “shopping district” be based on the same concept as the Costco model, that access to the stores is based on members-only? What is different is that it addresses a range of businesses that organize together to set up a business district. The district is gated, so to park in the vicinity you need a membership card that you slide into a card-reader. Confirmation lifts the gate so you can enter.
The drawback to this approach is that it is more difficult to enforce and apply. Malls and shopping districts are more spread out. No doubt thieves could find some creative ways to circumvent obstacles. But it would be difficult and, in general, members would feel safer and store operators would have more incentive to open businesses. If a person, or a car for that matter, had a record of violating the trust of the local store operators, then access would be denied.
Being that districts and malls are more fluid, access would need to be flexible. Visitors who are not members would need to be accommodated, possibly with a probationary arrangement or visitors pass. Security could maintain a database of both individuals and cars who have violated the district’s trust in the past, so while it may not completely protect a district from thieves, it may at least reduce crime substantially while enabling non-members to access the district.
Districts could also experiment with membership fees. Fees could operate in much the same way as a gate fee or a subway pass. A person could make a deposit periodically. And fees could be reduced or eliminated through in-store discounts. Buy $50 worth of merchandise and your access fee could be reduced or eliminated altogether.
It is quite possible that traditional malls could change their operations in a similar manner. One interesting thing I have noted in some cities that I have visited is that cities have markets which span one or more large buildings, usually old warehouses and factories. Vendors then lease space inside and sell everything from candy to fresh-baked bread. Access to these stores is usually restricted to a couple of entry points. Setting up a members-only restriction would be possible.
Alternative #3 – State Ownership
Believe it or not, it was the mayor of Chicago that dropped the idea of the city owning and running a grocery store. ( Sorry, as I pause for a moment laughing at the idea that the bureaucrats of Chicago can run a retail business.) But it can be done. It is done in many parts of the world: Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea to name a few. Maybe they could hire on some folks from the military who are experienced in running the canteens and commissaries that are located on bases.
Actually, to be serious, I think it would be good for Chicago to attempt the effort. It may take them twenty to fifty years, but the bureaucrats with such noble aspirations as ending “food deserts” would at least grow to appreciate the level of drive, imagination and risk required to provide a grocery store or pharmacy to a neighborhood. My guess is that the perpetrators of theft and violence that caused the exodus in the first place would continue, and the city would have to eventually realize that to make their own employees (which would be union members no doubt) safe they would need to play hard ball with the criminals. Yes – surprise – the police state would “do the will of the people.”
Alternative #4 – Elect Republicans
At this juncture of our history, the odds that a Republican being elected in Chicago, New York City, San Francisco or any other deep-blue city, is slim to none. Thus, it is the last alternative. Yet there is hope that the Republican platform will be adopted in some respects. I have heard it on YouTube often where local leaders are coming out and stating the obvious about human nature, and the need for law and order. As large businesses flee these urban centers, there are some people with enough sanity to realize that these businesses are operating in other cities – cities that are well-run, orderly and safe. More importantly, cities that have a long history of providing a dependable business environment. And these cities are often run by liberal Democrats.
While some mayors, like Eric Johnson of Dallas, TX, have bolted to the Republican Party, many Democratic leaders are saying enough is enough. They have challenged their party to discard the progressivism that has destroyed their cities. Cashless bail needs to be discarded, police fully funded and openly supported, and criminals removed from society. Homeless encampments need to be cleared from the streets. But it is evident that the Democratic Party is fragmenting. Whether moderates will be able to salvage the party is yet to be seen. What is happening more and more these days are that elected Democrats are turning to the Republican Party. The calculus is simple – campaign funding. When moderates object to progressive policies, they find themselves isolated from the party elite and eventually find that funding for the next campaign is not forthcoming. The “outside money” that made their campaigns flourish vanishes. It is logical that they turn to a party that has the resources to effectively assist in running a campaign for public office.
This political change will need to be “dispensational.” In other words, it will need to reflect a permanent change to the political landscape. Businesses like Walmart and Target are not going to return to these cities unless they see fundamental change in how society operates in these cities. What I am talking about is a generational transition where order is restored and trust is earned. The hard lesson that will be learned will be that it is far easier to leave a city than to return.
Closing Thoughts
We often take for granted that everything we see in our stores is “just there.” It isn’t. Every item has its own marketplace. The price you see listed is a reflection of hundreds of factors that determined what it cost to design, construct and deliver. And each element has resting behind it will. No economic system captures this strength of will more than capitalism operating in a perfectly competitive marketplace. Yet surrounding this marketplace are social and political forces that contain, redirect or squelch the will.
Previously we saw how businesses were leaving some urban centers due to a loss of will. Yet the ideas discussed above show that where there is a will, there is a way. As you can see, what shapes this will can be anything from creative alternatives to the open retail market, to reshaping the marketplace through political change. Whether these changes are effective, however, will be determined by the ability to survive and excel under changing market conditions.
Food deserts are not the result of corporate greed, as some would assert. Nor racism, for that matter. Businesses have left because they are simply not able or interested in operating under the social and political conditions existing in some of our cities. Politicians need to stop throwing out labels and accusations, and begin to soberly consider what would make businesses more willing to operate in their cities. And businesses may need to rethink the retail model where communities are less safe and customers less trustworthy.
© Copyright 2025 to Eric Niewoehner