54 cities declared war on dollar stores.

Hesperia's moratorium was framed as a food access equity issue — dollar stores displacing full-service grocers in low-income areas. This framing gives the moratorium political legitimacy beyond standard community character arguments and creates a durable legal basis that is harder to challenge.

Baltimore's dollar store moratorium is one of the most politically robust in the country, grounded in documented food desert analysis. The city's position — that dollar store density correlates with reduced grocery access in low-income neighborhoods — is supported by academic research and is difficult to rebut with standard development arguments.

Canton's moratorium reflects a third municipal rationale: commercial blight and economic development concerns. Empty storefronts near existing dollar stores, reduced property values, and the low employment generation of dollar stores are the core arguments. The moratorium is the political expression of a documented economic development concern.

The dollar store operators' community benefit argument — affordability and access for low-income residents — is their primary counter-narrative to food desert and economic blight arguments. It has political appeal but has not succeeded in preventing moratoriums in the municipalities that have enacted them.

The ILSR's research on dollar store market concentration has directly influenced municipal moratorium policy. Their documentation of dollar store's food desert impact has been cited in Baltimore, Hesperia, and dozens of other municipalities as the academic basis for moratorium legislation.

Dollar store operators have challenged moratoriums on state preemption and equal protection grounds in several jurisdictions. Results are mixed. In states with strong home rule traditions (California, Maryland, Ohio), municipalities have broader authority to restrict specific retail categories. In other states, the legal basis is less clear.