Zohran Mamdani's proposal to create city-owned grocery stores has become one of the most talked-about economic ideas in New York politics. Supporters say it could make food more affordable by selling groceries at prices below those of private supermarkets.
But "Shark Tank" investor Kevin O'Leary argues the plan would ultimately shift the cost from shoppers to taxpayers. His criticism raises a broader question for families trying to save money on groceries: if groceries are sold below market prices, who pays the difference?
Get instant access to hundreds of discounts
Over 50? Join AARP today— because if you’re not a member you could be missing out on huge perks like discounts on travel, dining, and even prescriptions.
Get 25% off membership — just $15 for your first year with auto-renewal — and a free gift if you join today.
What Mamdani is proposing
Mayor Mamdani has proposed creating a network of municipally owned grocery stores across New York City, particularly in neighborhoods with limited access to affordable food.
"At our five-borough municipal grocery stores, New Yorkers will get a 30% discount on eggs, milk, chicken, fresh produce and other everyday essentials," Mamdani said.
Unlike traditional supermarkets, the stores would operate on a nonprofit basis. According to Mamdani, private operators would not bear the usual rent and property-tax costs because the city would provide the storefronts and cover those expenses, while the operators would not be required to generate profits for shareholders.
Why Kevin O'Leary says taxpayers would pay
O'Leary argues that the economics of the proposal simply do not add up. O'Leary argued on X that grocery margins are only 2% to 3% and that selling products 30% below market prices would produce losses.
"Reducing selling prices by 30% across the board will guarantee that the stores will lose money on every sale. Who will pay for those losses? You, the NYC taxpayers," he wrote.
O'Leary's post claimed the 30% reduction would apply "across the board," although the city's plan limits the discount to a selected basket of essential products. His criticism captures the potential taxpayer exposure, although the administration's discount applies to a selected basket of essentials rather than every item sold.
While shoppers may pay less at checkout, any gap between sales revenue and the cost of operating the stores would still have to be covered.
How the program would be funded
Mamdani has said the stores would be financed through public investment rather than private capital, with the administration having allocated $70 million in capital funding to develop the five locations.
Supporters argue that removing costs such as commercial rent, property taxes, and shareholder profits could significantly reduce operating expenses. They also point to city purchasing power and centralized logistics as potential ways to lower costs.
However, even with those savings, running grocery stores still involves substantial ongoing expenses. The city would need to cover employee wages and benefits, utilities, refrigeration, transportation, distribution, inventory losses, building maintenance, and equipment.
Resolve $10,000 or more of your debt
National Debt Relief could help you resolve your credit card debt with an affordable plan that works for you. Just tell them your situation, then find out your debt relief options.1 <p>Please note that all calls with the company may be recorded or monitored for quality assurance and training purposes. Clients who are able to stay with the program and get all their debt settled realize approximate savings of 45% before fees, or 20% including our fees, over 24 to 48 months. All claims are based on enrolled debts. Not all debts are eligible for enrollment. Not all clients complete our program for various reasons, including their ability to save sufficient funds. Estimates based on prior results, which will vary based on specific circumstances. We do not guarantee that your debts will be lowered by a specific amount or percentage or that you will be debt-free within a specific period of time. We do not assume consumer debt, make monthly payments to creditors or provide tax, bankruptcy, accounting or legal advice or credit repair services. Not available in all states. Please contact a tax professional to discuss tax consequences of settlement. Please consult with a bankruptcy attorney for more information on bankruptcy. Depending on your state, we may be available to recommend a local tax professional and/or bankruptcy attorney. Read and understand all program materials prior to enrollment, including potential adverse impact on credit rating. "Debt-Free" applies only to enrolled credit cards, personal loans, and medical bills. Not mortgages, car loans, or other debts. Results vary.</p>
Sign up for a free debt assessment here.
Could groceries really be 30% cheaper?
Whether prices could consistently remain 30% below private competitors is one of the biggest unanswered questions.
Traditional supermarkets often operate on thin profit margins, frequently around 1% to 3%; the average profit rate among food retailers was just 2.1% in 2025. That means a large portion of grocery prices reflects wholesale food costs, labor, transportation, and other unavoidable operating expenses rather than profits.
Supporters argue that eliminating some overhead could narrow prices. Critics counter that those savings alone are unlikely to offset a permanent 30% discount, meaning continued taxpayer subsidies could be necessary.
What New York City shoppers could save
If the proposal works as advertised, some households could see meaningful savings. For example, the administration estimates that participating households could save roughly $90 per month, or about $1,000 per year.
Actual savings would depend on how much of a family's shopping basket consists of the discounted essential items and how the city defines "typical retail prices." The question is whether those savings would ultimately be financed through higher taxes or reduced spending elsewhere in the city budget.
The real cost behind discounted groceries
The disagreement reflects two very different views of the government's role in providing essential goods. Supporters see municipal grocery stores as comparable to public libraries, parks, or public transit, services that governments subsidize because they provide broad public benefits.
Critics warn that subsidized stores could put pressure on nearby bodegas and independent grocers, while budget watchdogs have called for a fuller public analysis of the program's cost and impact on
unsubsidized businesses.
Whether the stores ultimately save or cost money depends on factors that remain uncertain, including customer demand, operating efficiency, and the level of public funding required.
What this means for New York City taxpayers
Any operating shortfall would have to be absorbed somewhere in the city budget, although it is too early to know whether that would lead to higher taxes, reduced spending elsewhere, or another funding approach.
Even if shoppers save money at checkout, city finances could face additional pressure if municipal stores consistently operate at a loss. Without detailed operating budgets, it remains difficult to estimate the program's long-term cost.
Bottom line
Kevin O'Leary argues that selling groceries below market prices would not eliminate costs; it would shift them from shoppers to taxpayers.
The real question for New York City residents is not just how much you might save at checkout, but whether those savings show up elsewhere through higher taxes or reduced public spending. That trade-off matters for anyone hoping to save more on everyday essentials, because the real cost could depend on how much public support the stores require.
More from FinanceBuzz:
- 12 ways to pocket up to $300.
- Are you a homeowner? Get a protection plan on all your appliances.
- 10 little weird hacks Costco shoppers should know.
- Learn how to escape the paycheck-to-paycheck grind.
Add Us On Google