Do you support or oppose the idea of government-owned grocery stores?

Support (31%) – "I live in NYC and this would be incredibly beneficial for friends and neighbors who struggle to buy healthy, nutritious food for their families. Groceries are far too expensive, and as convenient as bodegas and small neighborhood markets are, there need to be more affordable options to choose from."

• "Too many low income neighborhoods are underserved in the food industry. There are either no major supermarkets in them or the existing supermarkets are ripping off the people who have little choice to shop elsewhere. A not for profit market selling just above wholesale, they MUST cover their costs, would help rein in rising food prices."

"In the military we have Commissaries to assist military families so why not something similar for the general public? It doesn't require military families to shop there but it definitely provides an alternative cost-effective choice for those who need it. I think it would be a good example to build on for communities experiencing food deserts. If small business owners or grocery stores have issues with cities doing this, they can always put in a grocery store in those areas to solve the problem. I think the saying goes, don't complain unless you have an alternate solution to offer. People shouldn't suffer as a result of profits for these corporations and cities should be able to step up to take care of their citizens if they feel the need."

Oppose (50%) – "Not a good use of city resources. It will cause an increase in taxes to pay for this added expense to the cities budget. Another solution might be to give a a tax break or a debit card to those that need it. I don’t like the city getting into private business. Start at the root cause of higher prices, it’s not the grocery stores fault, it’s most likely high land prices, high labor cost, high cost of NY living, taxes and regulations."

• "Government is never the most efficient system of supply and distribution of goods. This will fail, and it will cost the taxpayers of NY, but before that, it will probably put some of the existing neighborhood markets out of business, so the problem will eventually be worse. The free market is always the most efficient way to do things like this."

"It will drive grocery stores out of business and cause unemployment, It will be subsidized by taxpayer money (more debt). Grocery stores are not profitable at all and they are run by experts - how is it possible for people clueless about running businesses could do a better job? Experiments like this have happened all over the world - see Russia - and the results have demonstrated governments do not run businesses better than real businesses. If NY wants to do something useful that drive down the costs the drive grocery costs up in the first place and use all that planned wasted taxpayer money to subsidize the poorer people so they can purchase food."

• "Ultimately governmental functions don't include entry into such a business at huge losses, that is, expense to the tax payer. Government should be fixing the conditions that create food deserts."

"I think Mamdani is moving the city towards socialism very quickly. I think socialism always sounds good in theory, but doesn't work well in practice. My fear is that as taxes on wealthier people increase, they will leave the city (my city), and we will be left only with the impoverished. Socialist countries do not have stable food supplies or high quality lives. I agree that the gap between wealthy and poor has increased, and we need to address it, but socialism has proven itself ineffective."

Unsure/other (19%) – "I understand the need for better quality of food and prices available in certain areas of the city. In fact, many places of high poverty are good deserts that leave the most vulnerable without the better nutrition they need. However, I'm not sure if supporting the small businesses with tax money and helping them to do what is needed is not the better option. I don't know enough about the economic factors that keep these businesses from offering the lowest possible prices."

• "On the surface, it looks like a good idea - not terribly different than handing out food at a food bank. But the opponents are right in that it creates unfair competition by shifting cost like land and building maintenance to the city. If you don't have to pay rent or tax on the land (or reduced/controlled cost) vs market rate, you have an unfair advantage and that forces local mom & pop groceries out of business - they can't operate at that level. Normally I'd say that's just capitalism - let the stronger survive, but in this case, it is the city government and that makes this socialism which diminishes people's will to excel, creates a greater dependence on government to survive, and strips freedom from people- and that's very bad."