This may not be a popular position with some, but I don’t see a need to ban chain stores.
In fact, I think such a thing might do more harm to the downtown than good.
Before I get into my reasons,let me just say I admire the Buy Local folks. This is an important discussion, and I’m willing to listen to any counter argument. In fact, I offer up this space for a rebuttal to anyone from the group who wants to tell me why I’m wrong.
Furthermore, I'm actually a buy local guy. Tendercrop. Eureka. Greta's. Joppa Foods. Jabberwocky/Book Rack. You name it. When I can, I do buy local. (UPDATE: Add The Natural Dog. Love that place.)
Now, let’s get into the particulars. In fact, I’m breaking these many thoughts up into several posts (three or four I guess) so stay tuned.
My first--and unfortunately probably weakest reasoning--is my philosophical opposition. The notion of telling a property owner who they can and can’t do business with crosses the line for me.
I recognize that we sometimes sacrifice our ability to make personal choices for a common good or for our community.
We obviously have zoning and we should. We have the historic district and we should.
We also zone against use. Fine, we don’t want to have a Jiffy Lube on Broad Street. I get that. Makes sense.
In both cases we’re asking property owners or owners of historic homes to bend toward the will of the community. In some cases they bend a little bit, some cases a lot.
I understand why some true libertarians--not posers like myself--oppose the idea of any restrictions, but these limits or guidance make sense to me. Assuring appropriate land usage and preserving our historic buildings strengthens the community.
But I see a difference between all that and the chain store ban. It’s one thing to tell someone no vinyl siding on that historic treasure or please no strip malls on Malboro Street. It’s quite another to say, yes a sub shop is allowed in that spot, but you aren't allowed to operate that sub shop.
Those arguing in favor of a ban justify such a statement by suggesting that a chain store damages the community as a whole. But I haven't seen any evidence that the introduction to chain stores downtown has been detrimental.
In fact, I'd argue that even with the presence of a few more chain stores the downtown is stronger today than it was 10 years ago. I have more choices for coffee, despite having a Starbucks in the most visible spot downtown. I see more women's clothes stores, even with Talbots filling the slightly out-of-the way Strand.
In short, I don't see the damage that's been done.
Perhaps I could ignore my very narrow libertarian streak if I thought chain stores were a threat to the downtown, but I don't. I've seen the data that supposedly supports this notion and I have to say, I'm not convinced.
I'll address my doubts in an upcoming post.
3 comments:
I would agree with you Tom that Mary's post on this subject is well written and valid to some degree BUT what I know of Chicos and the uniques stores in downtown is that the types of clothing they sell isn't really comparable. Chain stores are harmful if they compete head on with the existing stores downtown, like Christmas Tree Shop v. the homegrown gift shopes, this doesn't appear to be exactly on point here. The other thing is there are studies showing when direct competition isn't a factor, having a well known chain move in actually increases the draw to an area in general, benefiting existing stores. On the banking issue, I hate to tell you, but most of the small shop owners I know aren't banking at local banks any more than Chicos is, they're banking at the bank that has the most to serve them, Bank of America and the like in most cases. I'm all for the preservation of the unique homegrown shops, they are treasures, but we are in America and competition is the law - be inovative, provide what other's can't in product and/or service and in the right location and you WILL do well, otherwise NOT, since when has America been a country of whiners? the winners (big and small guys) put some effort into competing not whining about the other guy! Control the look/architecture and perhaps even the size of things to maintain the aesthetics of downtown, but otherwise stop monkeying with natural selection. Geeze!
I agree with previous comment plus I think scale, size or niche matters. EG a Ritz Camera, or Curves, or Pink, or Coach would be OK IMO, but not Costco, Best Buy, etc.
Local or chain the test of is it good for downtown should be how does it fit both size wise and niche wise.
Tom, the ordinance submitted is not a ban on chain stores. It is simply a mechanism to allow the community to have some input into what is done with our City. The ordinance can always be overridden to allow another chain store. Without the ordinance we have no say. Fowles could be taken over by Friendly’s; the Fitness Factory could become a Borders and the Grog could become a Chiles. This could all happen overnight.
The Libertarian argument says we can do whatever we want with our property. Would you like to see a ten story Marriott in place of Oldies? As a member of the supportNBPT/Buy Local Committee, I would like to share some of the facts we’ve learned while researching other cities and towns that have banned chains.
•Approximately 70% of an independent’s revenue stays in the city vs. 15% of a chain’s revenue.
•Chains can pay higher rents. An influx of chains will increase rents throughout the city and push independents out.
•Independents give back more to the community in various charitable ways. A perfect example is our three local banks who contribute heavily to the community.
•Tourists come here for our waterfront and our specialty shops and restaurants. If they want to shop at chain stores, they can go to their local indoor mall. Why drive to Newburyport?
•Chains have the corporate backing to heavily advertise and offer hefty discounts that independents cannot afford – again pushing them out.
•And yes, chains will change the character of Newburyport, just as aluminum siding would on a house in the middle of Fruit Street.
Post a Comment