Skip to main content

Eat Your Vegetables: City Council Considers A Well-Disguised Sin Tax


The Oklahoma City Council is considering a well-disguised sin tax. They call it a Healthy Neighborhood Zoning Overlay, but the effect is the same. It limits new dollar stores in the specified neighborhood. The ostensible goal is to create a welcoming environment for grocery stores selling fresh meat and produce. But it accomplishes this goal by giving existing dollar stores a monopoly, which will raise prices, and punish residents for shopping at the purveyors of (allegedly nothing but) junk food, instead of subsisting on fresh, organic kale smoothies like good little citizens.

Why would the Council intentionally restrict the supply of stores where many of their residents buy basic household goods and food? Several possibilities present themselves, though none are sound. 

A fundamental misunderstanding of the laws of supply and demand.
Economists call the current state of the neighborhood a contestable market: dollar stores choose low prices because the mere potential of competition keeps them honest. If they charged monopoly prices, a competitor, enticed by the potential for abnormally high profits, would enter the neighborhood, causing both sides to lower prices again. 

The proposed Zoning Overlay, however, would end this deterrent to price-gouging. If new stores are too difficult to open, or prohibited from selecting the best locations, what is to stop the existing stores (all of whom are owned by the same parent company) from raising their prices? In fact, even stores who were vigorously competing would likely raise their prices in unison with each other (effecting monopoly pricing without an illegal conspiracy), once they were protected by this type of Zoning Overlay.

A misunderstanding of basic nutrition.
The dollar stores in question offer at least some frozen or canned vegetables. While many prefer the taste of fresh produce, there is substantial evidence that frozen and canned vegetables are just as healthy as fresh. Is the problem the availability of nutrients? Or is the Council trying to bully residents into eating the “right way?

A desire to elevate a special class of merchants.
This seems like an unintended consequence, not the design of the program. But federal antitrust laws carve out an exception for state and local laws. So if someone wanted to favor a particular kind of store, zoning laws can become a legal way to cheat the system. The state gives new car dealers just this sort of protection, explicitly stating that it does so to protect them from competition, in order to make sure they stay viable. Existing dollar stores may even realize the boon they are about to receive from the city council. 

Using public policy to punish, and thereby reduce, specific, undesirable behavior. 
This happens all the time. We call it a sin tax - think cigarettes, alcohol or gambling. Are we comfortable labeling junk food a “sin”? A traditional sin tax directs the proceeds to the public coffers, for some worthy project to offset the sin. Here, the proceeds of the “tax” will go to the purveyors of the so-called sin. Is that a desirable policy? 

The Council wants to impose its dietary norms on the public. It can’t force people to eat healthy. A direct tax on junk food, much less healthy nonperishables, would be wildly unpopular. So it found a clever workaround to punish residents for patronizing unhealthy dollar stores over virtuous grocers. 

The proposed zoning overlay is a relatively small geographic area. Of course, the initial cause for concern was the difficulty residents without cars have getting groceries. These are the people who will still be stuck paying monopoly prices at dollar stores, while residents with cars go outside the overlay to do their shopping. The Overlay is likely to do the most harm to the very people it is supposed to help. But don't worry, residents of 73111, the Overlay is not permanent. As soon as you clean up your act, the city promises to stop punishing you. 

Mike Davis is Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org.

The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.


Popular posts from this blog

OKC Public Schools Elevating a Privileged Elite over Oklahoma Taxpayers

The hypocrisy of the Soviet Union’s pretense of egalitarianism was well known enough to be the subject of mockery and parody. Ronald Reagan never tired of the jokes . Soviet communism espoused equality, but the reality is that party apparatchiks and government officials enjoyed special perks that no one else had access to. This special class wasn’t officially paid much more than the average skilled worker, but enjoyed privileges like dachas on the coast or countryside, special stores with imported goods and without the endless lines that were commonplace everywhere else, and more advanced medical treatment. For all their talk about eliminating class distinctions, the Soviet nomenklatura —those “doing the people’s work”—could feather their nest with the best of ‘em. Apparently, a similar attitude reigns in our government schools. Our friends at OCPA report that Oklahoma City Public Schools (OKCPS) will not offer in-person instruction to students for the first nine weeks of school this ...
Read more

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each ep...
Read more

Present Reforms to Keep the Ghost of State Questions Past from Creating Future Headaches

Oklahoma, like many western states, allows its citizens to directly participate in the democratic process through citizen initiatives and referendums. In a referendum, the legislature directs a question to the people — usually to modify the state constitution, since the legislature can change statutes itself. An initiative requires no legislative involvement, but is initiated by the people via signature gathering, and can be used to modify statute or amend the constitution. Collectively, the initiatives and referendums that make it onto the ballot are known as State Questions.   Recently, there have been calls to make it more difficult to amend the constitution. At least two proposals are being discussed. One would diversify the signature requirement by demanding that a proportional amount of signatures come from each region of the state. The other would require a sixty percent majority to adopt a constitutional amendment rather than the fifty percent plus one currently in place. ...
Read more

Zoning Offense: Attacks on Free Speech

Among its proponents, zoning (where government dictates how we can use our property) is credited with accomplishing a multitude of good for the public. However, there is a dark side to governmental control of land use. Throughout its history, zoning has been deployed to categorically discriminate against and exclude whoever might be the chosen pariah of the day. Whether the target was a religious or racial minority or a member of lower economic classes, zoning was a tool to exclude certain individuals from protected neighborhoods.   An early American land-use ordinance passed in San Francisco in the late 19 th century provides us with a clear example of weaponized land use control. In a subtle attempt to discriminate against Chinese launderers, San Francisco passed an ordinance that seemed neutral on its face. Essentially, it was impermissible to operate a laundry in a wood building. At the time, 75% of laundries were run by Chinese owners, and every single one was located in a wo...
Read more