San Francisco: “The Case by Case Basis Approach”
Since 2004, San Francisco has restricted the proliferation of chain stores by passing a law that states all chain stores must be approved by a Planning Commission by a case by case basis. In fact, this law unlike much of the public policy we discussed, provides direct guidelines for the commission to follow. The law specifies that the Planning Commission must consider the existing concentration of formula retail businesses within the neighborhood, whether similar goods or services are already available within the area, the compatibility of the proposed business with the character of the neighborhood, retail vacancy rates in the area, and the balance of neighborhood-serving versus citywide or regional-serving businesses. Furthermore, the law was recently amended to require that large scale businesses (specifically defined as those over 20,000 square feet except grocery stores) undergo an economic impact analysis, the results of which are considered by the Planning Commission in deciding whether to grant the applicant a permit. It is also to mention that in some neighborhoods, chain stores are entirely prohibited. Thanks to this decade-old policy, San Francisco has more independent businesses and fewer chains per capita than other big cities.
Arizona: “No More Tax Incentives to Large Retailers”
In July of 2007, Arizona adopted a law that bans certain districts (which encompass 2/3 of the state’s total population) in Phoenix from providing tax breaks to retail developers. Under the law, cities that continue to fund retail development will see their share of state revenue reduced by an amount equal to the incentives they give developers. Arizona cities have one of the worst records of subsidizing shopping centers in the nation.Recent deals include $84 million provided by the city of Mesa for Riverview, a large retail project anchored by Walmart, Home Depot, and Bass Pro Shops, and a $78 million subsidy given to Westcor for a shopping center in the city of Goodyear. For this reason, this law was extremely important particularly for Arizona. In fact, efforts are being made to made this law applicable state wide. This law scales back from motivating developers, a concept we discussed via Robert Moses.
Palm Beach: “Town Serving Zone”
A zoning law passed in Palm Beach converted the main commercial district in the city into a “town-serving zone”. In order to do this, the law capped the size of the stores in the area at 2,000 square feet and forces them to serve primarily “town persons”. Town persons are defined as those living, or working in Palm Beach. Businesses larger than 2,000 square feet can apply for a special exception use permit provided they have an auditing firm document that more than 50 percent of receipts come from a local zip code. These restrictions serve legitimate public interests based on the local residents’ opinions. Furthermore, they reflect the town’s desire to limit the displacement of its local businesses by larger, regional establishments, the very crisis NYC is facing today.
Colorado: “Development Moratorium”
A moratorium is defined as a temporary prohibition of something. In 1994, several large chains announced plans to locate in Fort Collins, Colorado. In response, the city adopted a six-month moratorium on development of stores larger than 80,000 square feet. The city used the time to review the design, transportation, and other planning issues posed by big box retailers, and to make changes to its planning and zoning rules. Although this is not a long term solution, it is a very needed short term time buyer to come up with an efficient and effective long term solution. I think this sort of action is extremely important to consider in terms of the crisis NYC is facing especially because it keeps getting progressively worse. A moratorium will potentially provide our city with the time it needs to decide the best course of action.
Sources:
