[sdevoid]

What is necessarily provocative about the term? Both the noun and verb forms of the word "desert" fit well here, especially in the context of the history that this article talks about.

"If you don't have a car ... you are going to have a significantly limited life in so many ways that having to drive to the supermarket just seems like a triviality in comparison." Except that everyone needs to eat, and we know that a poor diet can lead to many, many bad health outcomes. You're correct that there are other disadvantages, such as access to employment opportunities. But if you didn't live in a food desert, you could get a job at the grocery store, right?

"people just like, have cars, it's normal" Except that owning (or leasing) a car is a significant, ongoing expense. I barely use mine (<1,000 miles per year) and it still costs me $2k in insurance, registration, and maintenance. Some people just can't afford that. And what if you are young, old, or are unable to drive for any reason?

[naming_the_user]

It's provocative because the implication is that it's a "problem" that needs to be "solved" when in reality there's a free market, if you think that an area needs a grocery store then start one up, you'll probably find that there is just isn't the demand.

Everyone needs to have a life, to have a life in the United States outside of a few very specific areas requires a member of your family to have a car.

> I barely use mine (<1,000 miles per year)

Right, so you obviously don't live in a food desert, presumably you're in NYC or San Francisco or the DC area or some other place where you can just use the metro for everything, this is not the case in the vast majority of the US, it's not even the case in most of Britain or Europe.

My grandma has to walk 15 minutes to get to her nearest food shop, one day she won't be able to make that walk, does she live in a food desert? No, she's just old, we'll help her out!