The sign is up and its a matter of time before the store opens and we officially enter the Walmart era in Chatham. The Walmart Express is Walmart's answer to Supervalu's now defunct Urban Fresh concept and a strong competitor to local convenience stores.
Aldi's has already thrown the first blow by adverising a gallon of milk for $1.79 which is .40 cheaper than what a convenience store is charging on 83rd street
So I expect Walmart to beat both and force them to either match or get out the way. Sources have told me that Walmart has shopped the community and has looked at goods and services they can duplicate and beat competitors on price such as soul food, chicken, sandwiches and basic staples( milk, bread, eggs, etc.).
So can the convenience stores along 83rd street compete and stay in business? Will the Walmart Express be the lesser of evils some perceive of these stores?
This is a comment from a reader via email.
ReplyDeleteOnce upon a time, I grew up in the Burnside / Chatham area 87th Street and Cottage Grove. I am very familiar with Starlight Bowling, Rhodes Theater, Polk Brothers, Burnside School, Tuley Park, Safeway Buses along MLK Drive as well as the apartment buildings that once occupied the space of Seaway Bank at 87th Street and Langley, etc. etc.
I enjoy reading your blog and find it very interesting.
Thought you might find the following article of interest. Your main feature today was all about the Convenience Stores along 83rd Street."
July 23, 2011
Bad Food? Tax It, and Subsidize Vegetables
What will it take to get Americans to change our eating habits? The need is indisputable, since heart disease, diabetes and cancer are all in large part caused by the Standard American Diet. (Yes, it’s SAD.)
Though experts increasingly recommend a diet high in plants and low in animal products and processed foods, ours is quite the opposite, and there’s little disagreement that changing it could improve our health and save tens of millions of lives.
And — not inconsequential during the current struggle over deficits and spending — a sane diet could save tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs.
Yet the food industry appears incapable of marketing healthier foods. And whether its leaders are confused or just stalling doesn’t matter, because the fixes are not really their problem. Their mission is not public health but profit, so they’ll continue to sell the health-damaging food that’s most profitable, until the market or another force skews things otherwise. That “other force” should be the federal government, fulfilling its role as an agent of the public good and establishing a bold national fix.
Rather than subsidizing the production of unhealthful foods, we should turn the tables and tax things like soda, French fries, doughnuts and hyperprocessed snacks. The resulting income should be earmarked for a program that encourages a sound diet for Americans by making healthy food more affordable and widely available.
The average American consumes 44.7 gallons of soft drinks annually. (Although that includes diet sodas, it does not include noncarbonated sweetened beverages, which add up to at least 17 gallons a person per year.) Sweetened drinks could be taxed at 2 cents per ounce, so a six-pack of Pepsi would cost $1.44 more than it does now. An equivalent tax on fries might be 50 cents per serving; a quarter extra for a doughnut. (We have experts who can figure out how “bad” a food should be to qualify, and what the rate should be; right now they’re busy calculating ethanol subsidies. Diet sodas would not be taxed.)
Simply put: taxes would reduce consumption of unhealthful foods and generate billions of dollars annually. That money could be used to subsidize the purchase of staple foods like seasonal greens, vegetables, whole grains, dried legumes and fruit.
Read the entire article at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24bittman.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1311615439-9ibGzji07cBS374YYrZOFw