New York City Zohran Mamdani will soon have to defend his socialist schemes in federal court.
That's because of a fresh lawsuit that accuses his socialist supermarkets of "unfair competition" against local grocers.
The National Supermarket Association and two of its members – City Fresh Market in Harlem and C-Town Supermarket in the Bronx – are taking the mayor to court for violating antitrust laws.
The litigants are filing their lawsuit in the Southern District of New York, which is not exactly renowned for its concern over civil rights.
The association’s president, Anthony Peña, told The Post that the millions of dollars going to the government-backed stores are a form of "unfair competition."
“We are arguing that everyone has to be able to access these subsidies,” Peña said. “It’s not about us being afraid of competition. We are against unfair competition.”
The group represents 450 independent grocery stores in New York City. It is filing the complaint with the America First Policy Institute, which is chaired by Larry Kudlow, President Trump’s former top economic advisor.
“Independent supermarkets have invested in our neighborhoods, created jobs, paid taxes and served local families for generations,” Peña added. “They deserve a fair and level playing field – not competition against a government-subsidized program operating under different rules.”
The Mamdani grocery plan is now facing two major legal offensives — an August state-court challenge consisting of two separate MBC filings, and a new federal antitrust lawsuit from independent supermarket operators.
Last month, an official with the New York City Economic Development Corporation attracted scrutiny for suggesting the city could offer “grants” to shop owners who lose business to the city-owned supermarkets. The agency walked back the idea after the "utterly insane" remarks surfaced in an interview with NY1.
“We are not currently considering any grant programs for existing grocers,” an EDC spokesperson clarified.
“However, we are looking at the potential for tax abatement, incentives, and zoning benefits through existing city programs to ensure that the city is doing everything in our power to alleviate cost pressures for small businesses,” the spokesperson added.
The new federal plaintiffs point out that they're being asked to compete against stores getting advantages they cannot obtain. The municipal locations won't bear the same rent and property-tax burdens, and taxpayers may directly finance the 30 percent discount on top of those advantages. The federal complaint now rightly challenges that structure as anticompetitive.
The whole issue around these government-backed stores isn't that they can't artificially and temporarily lower grocery prices. It's that they create a vicious circle of good money being thrown after bad.
When the government subsidizes groceries with taxpayer money — either through tax funds or by taking private property off the market — it creates a cycle where market competition is driven out of business.
This causes the tax base to dwindle. Either the disenfranchised business owners flee to a free state or they are forced into a job that does not match their job skills.
Meanwhile, the grocery store attracts more artificial demand. Since the prices do not accurately reflect supply and demand, you get food shortages. You might get black markets, since predatory buyers will purchase more than they need for resale. That's when the irony of government IDs for grocery market purchases, but not elections, comes in.
Everything Woke turns to sh*t for a reason. The economics do not work. And the human damage is real.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy RedState's conservative reporting exposing the radical left and woke media? Support our work so we can keep bringing you the truth.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the Conversation
VIP members get the ability to comment on articles.