I am often puzzled and
mystified at the sometimes vituperative finger pointing that takes place when
reading or listening to some of the commentary on city-related activities.
A recent example of this was
in some of the reactions I have heard about the recent slate of store
closures in town. Why, when corporate
America in boardrooms all across the country make a decision that leads to the
imminent demise of a local retailer, that there is a segment of our community that
calls on the City as the one to be blamed?
Instead, let’s consider for a moment the overall economics of the area’s development
landscape and our evolving buying patterns and habits.
For years, in the 1990s and
early 2000s, residential development and population growth occurred at around a
healthy 1.5 to 2 percent a year. By many measures, that is a manageable rate of
growth, growth that I believe all levels of government here in the County did a
good job of overseeing. To others, this rate of growth was tantamount to the
ugliness of urban sprawl, something that had to be stopped or the ruination of
the County was imminent.
However, it was this very
growth, particularly in the residential sector, which the national retailers
were looking for when making a decision to locate here. The stores we see today
were built because of a) our growing population and b) the anticipation of more
to come.
This growth pattern turned
upside down with the 2008-2009 economic meltdown. All residential growth
stopped, not just here, but across the country. Stores that were opened in
anticipation of continued residential growth became stressed to a point that
they are now finally consolidating or shutting their doors.
So, with the benefit of
hindsight, we can now answer yes to the question: “Did the local retail sector overbuild?”
Many retailers, wanting to be first in the market before someone else beat them
to the punch, rolled the dice that more residential development was to come,
that the spigot would not be turned off any time soon.
Was this overbuilding the
City’s fault? Let’s answer that with a couple of questions.
Remember the days when
complaints centered on the need for extended out-of-town travel to do any
meaningful shopping? You don’t hear those complaints too often anymore.
Considering where we were at
in our desires for more shopping options locally, what would have been the
community’s reaction if the City took steps to actively discourage or prohibit
such retail development? The outcry would have been loud and thunderous.
Let’s also consider the following.
For all those who lament the closure of Barnes and Noble, how many have ordered
books on-line from Amazon or other similar sources?
For all those who lament the
closure of JC Penney’s, how many have ordered shoes from Zappos or other
on-line clothiers?
The on-line shopping
phenomenon isn’t some flash in the pan. It will continue to grow. The retail
landscape is changing in response to it. This change will mean an increase in a
retailer’s on-line presence and a growing number of closures or consolidations
of their brick and mortar counterparts.
The City, or any government
entity, is not perfect. The pressures they face, the competing voices and
interests they must serve, and the ideals and polices individuals or group of
leaders espouse are all mixed into a stew we call our democratic system. Sometimes
it is distasteful and messy.
But, when it comes to the
closures of stores, the fault lies not with the City, but with corporate
America and us, as consumers.
Comments
Post a Comment