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

A Reminder of the Ineffectiveness of Covid-19 Lockdowns

Since the beginning of this pandemic, the 1889 Institute has argued against lockdowns even as “experts” advocated for them. Now, months after the weeks-long lockdowns were supposed to end, there are still states in various levels of lockdown. State and local governments have devastated their economies with shutdowns in the name of public health. Yet some politicians, including presidential candidate Joe Biden, have stated a willingness to lockdown the economy again on a national scale to eliminate COVID-19, in a "virus first, economy later" approach. Even as some lawmakers in Oklahoma urge governor Stitt to take more extreme action, it is essential to remember that lockdowns are not very effective. A group of epidemiologists have released a declaration denoting the harmful effects of lockdowns. These include; lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health. These consequences are more ...
Read more

If Licensing Protects Consumers, Why Are Licensing Laws Blatantly Anti-Consumer?

Once upon a time, there was a small island whose economy revolved around scuba-diving tourism. Unfortunately, the island elected legislators who considered scuba dangerous. Inexperienced divers would surface too quickly and get the bends. The legislature, wanting to make diving feel safer, passed a law that banned sharks in designated scuba diving zones. There were no known cases of sharks attacking divers, nor were divers being frightened into surfacing too quickly by sharks. This is what most occupational licensing schemes look like. Legislators act, giving the public a sense of security, and giving powerful industries protection from competition. The laws do almost nothing to help consumers. Not only are they futile, they are also deceptive.   Some licensing regimes, like the Oklahoma Real Estate Broker ’ s Act, take the deceit one step farther. Instead of just telling the sharks not to eat people (which they weren’t doing anyway) the act does the equivalent of gathering a group...
Read more

Oklahoma Mayors Acted Unlawfully With COVID-19 Orders

In response to COVID-19, the mayors of Oklahoma’s three largest cities subjected their citizens to draconian shelter in place orders, restricting their freedom, damaging them financially, and undermining their constitutional rights. The mayoral decrees were more restrictive than those of the Governor, and in significant ways contradicted his policy. To this day, city-mandated social distancing rules remain in place in Oklahoma City, Tulsa, and Norman that are not required by the state’s reopening plan. The mayors claim that where their rules are more restrictive than the state’s, the city rules apply. Was any of this unilateral mayoral activity legally valid? For the reasons examined in my paper published today, An Argument Oklahoma’s Mayors Acted Unlawfully During COVID-19 , the short answer is no. (A summary of the paper can be found here .) A close examination of relevant city ordinances and state laws governing the mayors’ COVID-19 decrees forces the conclusion tha...
Read more

Destroying Others’ Property Is Violence, No Matter How It’s Done

With characterizations of protests and riots that have occurred over the last several months as “mostly peaceful” and headlines that include “peaceful demonstration intensified,” and “Fiery But Mostly Peaceful Protests,” it’s clear many in the press do not consider property destruction to be violent. Most likely, they mean most of the protesters haven’t physically harmed anyone. Still, during the very same protests, a large proportion of the “peaceful” participants , in obvious acts of aggression and hostility, have vandalized and stolen property. In fact, property destruction and theft are acts of violence, and are therefore legitimately defended against, not because these acts feel threatening, but because they are, in and of themselves, violent.   Nevertheless, it’s common to hear many condemn individuals who use or threaten force in defense of their property. After all, if no one is physically harmed, or even actually threatened, how can damaging inanimate objects possibl...
Read more