SUPERSTORE BAN WOULD BOX IN CITY'S CONSUMERS.

Byline: Martin M. Cooper Local View

EARLIER this year, in a public policy over-reach, the Los Angeles City Council attempted to ram through an outright ban on big-box superstores operating within city boundaries. Wal-Mart, which is aggressively pursuing urban markets, was the big-box ban's intended target; however, all other large retailers operating in the city would have also been casualties of the ordinance's sweeping provisions.

Los Angeles' business organizations, the Valley Industry and Commerce Association included, pointed out that the proposed ban would have resulted in higher costs and fewer choices for consumers, and the creation of an even more restrictive business environment that would drive retailers to cities surrounding Los Angeles. Worse yet, in a time when we need to be creating more jobs, not fewer, the council was looking to drive potential employers away from Los Angeles.

To be clear, the business community's opposition to the big-box ban is in no way an endorsement of Wal-Mart and its policies. The proposed ban is simply bad policy and bad business. Fortunately for the city's struggling business community and for all Angelenos, the big-box ban was scrapped.

But, as proof that bad ideas in government never die, they simply get reincarnated in a different form, a ``revised'' big-box ordinance is making its way through city circles. The city's Planning Commission, meeting in Van Nuys on June 24, will take up a ``new'' ordinance that isn't packaged as an outright ban - but upon close inspection, it might as well be.

The city's new big-box ordinance has the same effect as the old - fewer choices, higher prices for consumers and a stifling of job creation and growth - even if it is wrapped up in a new package. Under the ordinance, any proposed store in the city's ``economic assistance areas'' exceeding 100,000 square feet, with more than 10 percent of the floor area devoted to ``nontaxable'' items (not just groceries, but products from pharmacies, optometric services, etc.), would be required to complete an ``economic impact analysis'' to demonstrate that the surrounding community would not be adversely affected by such a store.

Essentially, the impact of these requirements represents a significant ban in most of the city.

No evidence exists that large retailers in economic assistance areas create blight in Los Angeles. In fact, the opposite is true. Large retailers in Panorama City, Canoga Park, Eagle Rock and Baldwin Hills have served as catalysts for revitalization of aging retail centers and surrounding communities. The proposed ordinance would add a new burden to an already expensive and cumbersome city approval process.

Additionally, this proposed ordinance would further exacerbate the number of Angelenos who flock to communities outside the city, where they will have more choices at better prices.

It's hard to see the logic behind or the necessity of this wolf-in-sheep's clothing big-box ban. The City Council should rise above the appeasement of certain special interests and focus on attracting more jobs to Los Angeles and to provide consumers with maximum choice at the lowest possible cost for goods and services.

Hopefully, our city's leaders can put their anti-big-box feelings aside and do what's right for all Los Angeles residents and business owners. Los Angeles' business community and our city's residents deserve nothing less. This revised big-box ban remains a burdensome over-reach and needs to be stopped.