ATLANTA, Ga. (Atlanta News First) – A first-of-its-kind grocery store is getting ready to open its doors in Downtown Atlanta — and city leaders say it could be a game-changer for tackling food insecurity.
Azalea Fresh Market is moving into the historic Olympia Building, most recently home to a Walgreens, near Woodruff Park. Crews have been busy sprucing up the space this week with fresh signage and sidewalk cleaning ahead of the grand opening.
What makes the store unique is how it’s funded. The project is a partnership between the City of Atlanta, Savi Provisions, a supermarket chain with multiple Atlanta locations, and Invest Atlanta, an economic development agency. The city invested $3.5 million into the $5.4 million project
City leaders say food deserts disproportionately affect low-income neighborhoods. The grocery store is designed to bring affordable, fresh options right into the heart of downtown.
The investment also includes safety improvements.
“We made a commitment to this location, to Savi and to the residents and businesses of downtown — particularly right here near Woodruff Park. We’re going to make sure that it’s safe,” Atlanta Mayor Andre Dickens said.
People who live, work and study downtown say they’re excited about having healthier choices close by.
“If I have the option and I know it’s going to be just as good, I’ll probably go for the healthier option,” college student Nolan Williams said.
According to Invest Atlanta, the store is expected to generate $15 million in overall economic impact for the area. Plans are already underway for a second location on Campbellton Road in Southwest Atlanta later this year.
Azalea Fresh Market downtown will be open from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. seven days a week. It’s set to open soon, but an exact date has not yet been announced.
Charlie Kirk, the far-right commentator and ally of Donald Trump, was killed on Wednesday doing what he was known for throughout his career – making incendiary and often racist and sexist comments to large audiences.
If it was current and controversial in US politics, chances are that Kirk was talking about it. On his podcasts, and on the podcasts of friends and adversaries, and especially on college campuses, where he would go to debate students, Kirk spent much of his adult life defending and articulating a worldview aligned with Trump and the Maga movement. Accountable to no one but his audience, he did not shy away in his rhetoric from bigotry, intolerance, exclusion and stereotyping.
Here’s Kirk, in his own words. Many of his comments were documented by Media Matters for America, a progressive non-profit that tracks conservative media.
On race
If I see a Black pilot, I’m going to be like, boy, I hope he’s qualified.
– The Charlie Kirk Show, 23 January 2024
If you’re a WNBA, pot-smoking, Black lesbian, do you get treated better than a United States marine?
If I’m dealing with somebody in customer service who’s a moronic Black woman, I wonder is she there because of her excellence, or is she there because of affirmative action?
If we would have said that Joy Reid and Michelle Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee and Ketanji Brown Jackson were affirmative action picks, we would have been called racists. Now they’re coming out and they’re saying it for us … You do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously. You had to go steal a white person’s slot to go be taken somewhat seriously.
We record all of it so that we put [it] on the internet so people can see these ideas collide. When people stop talking, that’s when you get violence. That’s when civil war happens, because you start to think the other side is so evil, and they lose their humanity.
– Kirk discussing his work in an undated clip that circulated on X after his killing.
Prove me wrong.
– Kirk’s challenge to students to publicly debate him during the tour of colleges he was on when he was assassinated.
On gender, feminism and reproductive rights
Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You’re not in charge.
– Discussing news of Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce’s engagement on The Charlie Kirk Show, 26 August 2025
The answer is yes, the baby would be delivered.
– Responding to a question about whether he would support his 10-year-old daughter aborting a pregnancy conceived because of rape on the debate show Surrounded, published on 8 September 2024
We need to have a Nuremberg-style trial for every gender-affirming clinic doctor. We need it immediately.
I think it’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the second amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.
– Event organized by TPUSA Faith, the religious arm of Kirk’s conservative group Turning Point USA, on 5 April 2023
On immigration
America was at its peak when we halted immigration for 40 years and we dropped our foreign-born percentage to its lowest level ever. We should be unafraid to do that.
The great replacement strategy, which is well under way every single day in our southern border, is a strategy to replace white rural America with something different.
We’ve been warning about the rise of Islam on the show, to great amount of backlash. We don’t care, that’s what we do here. And we said that Islam is not compatible with western civilization.
September 10, 1897 Nineteen unarmed striking coal miners were killed and 36 more wounded in Lattimer (near Hazleton), Pennsylvania, for refusing to disperse, by a posse organized by the Luzerne County sheriff. The strikers, most of whom were shot in the back, were originally brought in as strike-breakers, but later created their own union. The background and details
September 10, 1963 Twenty black students entered public schools in Birmingham, Tuskegee and Mobile, Alabama. The Governor George C. Wallace had ordered Alabama state troopers to stop the federal court-ordered integration of Alabama’s elementary and high schools. President John Kennedy responded by calling out the Alabama National Guard to protect the students and to see the order enforced. President Kennedy spoke that day at American University’s commencement, saying, “Peace need not be impractical, war not inevitable . . . There is not peace in many of our cities because there is not freedom.”
September 10, 1996 Sheryl Crow’s second album was banned from Wal-Mart stores because the song she co-wrote with Tad Wadhams, “Love Is A Good Thing” opens with “Watch out sister, watch out brother, Watch our children while they kill each other With a gun they bought at Wal-Mart discount stores….” Read more about this eventand an update
I asked Robbie Kaplan, the lawyer who tried the case, how she felt after learning that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the $83.3 million verdict a jury awarded E. Jean Carroll in her defamation case against Donald Trump. This is what Kaplan told me: “Both the amazing and brave E. Jean Carroll and I could hardly be happier about today’s decision from the Second Circuit. It has been a long road to get here, and we are not at the end of the road yet, but as the opinion makes clear: ‘The starting point is the now-indisputable fact that a jury found in Carroll II that Trump sexually abused Carroll in 1996, and … that, based on the jury’s findings, Carroll did not lie and that Trump uttered falsehoods in his statements accusing her of lying and acting with improper motivations.’”
The Second Circuit affirmed the verdict against Trump on the same day that Trump’s birthday missive to Jeffrey Epstein became public. Trump says he didn’t send it, but the signature is extremely similar to verified Trump signatures on notes he wrote to both George Conway and Hillary Clinton. The birthday message is in the distinctive Sharpie marker scrawl Trump is known for. But Trump is insisting it isn’t his, a strange hill to die on since his friendship with Epstein is well documented. A jury believed E. Jean when she said Trump sexually assaulted her. The jury of public opinion may well believe Trump sent this incriminating note to Epstein.
Trump will undoubtedly try to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. It will be up to the Court to decide whether to hear the case or let the Second Circuit’s opinion stand.
The 70-page opinion starts like this: “A jury found that then-President Trump acted with common law malice when he made defamatory statements about Carroll in June 2019 and awarded compensatory and punitive damages. Trump appeals, arguing that he is entitled to presidential immunity or, in the alternative, a new trial. Trump also contends that the jury’s damages award is excessive and must be remitted.” The court then writes one word, “AFFIRMED,” which means that the jury’s verdict stands. You can read the full opinion here.
Last December, the Second Circuit affirmed the verdict in the case referred to as “Carroll II”—the second defamation case Carroll filed against Trump, which confusingly went to trial first (because Trump bogged down “Carroll I” in appeals). The jury in Carroll II returned a $5 million verdict against Trump.
In this case, Carroll I, Carroll’s lawyer, Robbie Kaplan, argued to the jury that if a $5 million verdict was insufficient to stop Trump’s defamation of Carroll, then they needed to return a larger verdict that they believed would stop his misconduct. That’s what they did. The verdict was for $83.3 million.
Trump asked the Court of Appeals to reverse for two reasons:
He argued that the Supreme Court’s decision about presidential immunity in criminal cases in Trump v. United States means the Second Circuit erred when it refused to afford him immunity in this civil case, even though it involves an assault that occurred decades before he became the president. Beyond that, while he defamed Carroll while he was in office the first time, his comments were about an entirely personal matter that had nothing to do with the office he held. The court declined to reverse on this ground. They held Trump had waived the immunity argument by not making it at the proper time before the lower court.
Trump also challenged the district court’s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of Carroll and other procedural rulings. The trial court held that a jury had already found that Trump sexually assaulted Carroll in the first trial and that finding was binding in the second case. That decision reflects the well-known principle of collateral estoppel, and the Court ruled there was no reason to disturb it because the identical issue was decided in the prior action and Trump had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue during those proceedings.
Trump has frequently been able to twist courts and delays to his advantage. He did that here for a time. But that clock seems to have run out on him. The Supreme Court would have to up end its existing jurisprudence on basic procedural issues to rule for Trump here.
A jury believed E. Jean Carroll. That’s the bottom line. In our system, we leave decisions about disputed facts and what happened to juries. The jury here deliberated and found against Donald Trump. That decision should remain in place. In an era where so much damage is being done to women’s legal standing, it’s essential that we be believed when we have the courage to speak out about sexual assault. Carroll did that. She told friends about the attack at the time in occurred but had been too intimidated by threats she would lose her job and her livelihood if she spoke up to move forward then.
If we can do nothing else for women in an era where abortion rights, more properly understood as the right to receive lifesaving medical care, and other rights have been taken away, we can do this: we can believe them when they summon the courage to come forward and reveal a rape or a sexual assault. Maybe if our nation had done that sooner, we wouldn’t have had a Trump presidency at all.
Scottie's Playtime 