First of all, CVS can locate its stores wherever it darn well pleases.
Secondly, I suspect those figures showing there are 48% more CVS store in the wealthiest neighborhoods compared to the poorest and 1/3 fewer stores per person in non-white areas are very misleading.
The primary reason for this “discrepancy” is almost certainly population density. More affluent neighborhoods are much more spread out than inner city ones, requiring a chain to have more stores, to be within a reasonble distance of the same number of customers, as compared with the inner city. The fact that there are ONLY 1/3 fewer stores per capita in the inner city, is probably an indication that CVS is making a concerted effort to serve the inner city.
But, again, CVS should is not obligated to “serve the community”. They are in business to make money and if stores in certain communities are unprofitable, or unsafe, there is no reason for CVS to maintain them there.
Does anyone else see the mortgage meltdown pattern repeating itself?
Step one - “Community Organizers” cry “redlining” and coerce businesses into making bad business decisions by threatening them with protests and demanding legislation that will force them to make unprofitable business decisons.
The next step will be a boom in inner city pharmacy openings, as a result of a combination of coercion and funding/tax breaks from the Federal government.
After that will come the great inner city pharmacy bust, with stores losing money and chains facing bankruptcy.
Finally, of course, there will be a massive, taxpayer funded, pharmacy bailout.
“Step one - “Community Organizers” cry “redlining” and coerce businesses into making bad business decisions by threatening them with protests and demanding legislation that will force them to make unprofitable business decisons.”
The retort from CVS should be, “no one is forcing you to shop here.”