Banning Dollar Stores Hurts Underserved Communities More Than It Helps
From The Foundation for Economic Education
Does Limiting Them Help or Hurt?
According to the US Department of Agriculture, at last count, 12.7 percent of US census tracts fell under the banner of “low-income, low-access.” This simply means a large portion of that tract’s population lives more than one mile from a food store in an urban area or more than ten miles from one in a rural area.
Dollar stores exist in these areas because of the lack of direct competition. Economically depressed areas often struggle to encourage new businesses, like full-service grocers, and struggle to maintain the ones currently operating. Dollar stores fill a very real need for families across this country. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t exist.
By banning dollar stores, especially without the assurance of a full-service grocer, governments are limiting families’ options, forcing them to travel farther and longer to purchase things like tuna, sugar, Pampers, or other name-brand, discount items.
Sarah Nassauer summed it up in her article about Dollar General:
“Dollar General is expanding because rural America is struggling. With its convenient locations for frugal shoppers, it has become one of the most profitable retailers in the U.S. and a lifeline for lower-income customers bypassed by other major chains.”
This statement rings true for both rural and urban low-income communities.
Banning or limiting dollar stores does not, in turn, usher in an age of full-service grocery stores in underserved neighborhoods. It just means fewer options for those who live there.
Read the whole article: