Interesting contrast to our approach towards retail development (this is actually about an effort to relax the definition of a chain, but still highlights the difference in perspective):


San Francisco looks to alter chain store rules to help small businesses
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/19/us-usa-chains-sanfrancisco-idUSKBN0FO02U20140719

We're a largely blue collar town more apt to count pennies. The San Fransisco medium family income is over $90,000 and Oklahoma City's is about $44,000. I'm sure their housing is higher but it's a rich town. Just a thought.

We're a largely blue collar town more apt to count pennies. The San Fransisco medium family income is over $90,000 and Oklahoma City's is about $44,000. I'm sure their housing is higher but it's a rich town. Just a thought.

It's sort of a mixed bag, a chain like Starbucks brings an amenity that a neighborhood might be lacking, and perhaps a local might not be able to risk the capital. It's not a "no chains" policy that makes a neighborhood better, they can offer positives and negatives.

It's sort of a mixed bag, a chain like Starbucks brings an amenity that a neighborhood might be lacking, and perhaps a local might not be able to risk the capital. It's not a "no chains" policy that makes a neighborhood better, they can offer positives and negatives.

That's kind of the point though. Restricting the chains mitigates the risk to locals and encourages them to invest.

I'm not really advocating the policy, but I think it's good to consider the consequences of what we do to local businesses when we subsidize outside competition. It's certainly creates a market where it's ill advised to start your own business, because there is a real risk that the local government will compete against you.

Personally, I wouldn't restrict chains or subsidize them. If anything, I'd be subsidizing the locals.

We're a largely blue collar town more apt to count pennies. The San Fransisco medium family income is over $90,000 and Oklahoma City's is about $44,000. I'm sure their housing is higher but it's a rich town. Just a thought.

44k will get you a lot farther in OKC than 90k in San Francisco. I tried to live there years ago and found that out quick.

Personally, I wouldn't restrict chains or subsidize them. If anything, I'd be subsidizing the locals.

^This. I would have told Cabela's to go pound sand before I gave them $3.5 million to locate out on Memorial Road. I would have rather the city spent that money helping 10 to 20 local small businesses get off the ground.

^This. I would have told Cabela's to go pound sand before I gave them $3.5 million to locate out on Memorial Road. I would have rather the city spent that money helping 10 to 20 local small businesses get off the ground.

Cabelas is an economically viable business already, why should they ever get a subsidy? The only recipients of a subsidy should be a calculated risk.

That is just it. There is no risk. The city will get the money back in 7 years and then it is all profit. Cabelas will also feed the other stores in Chisholm Creek and the memorial corridor. They will also collect sales tax which is all profit for the city. After all Cabellas can get a deal from someone else like Moore who just posted the highest sales tax collections per capita in the state of Oklahoma.

That is just it. There is no risk. The city will get the money back in 7 years and then it is all profit. Cabelas will also feed the other stores in Chisholm Creek and the memorial corridor. They will also collect sales tax which is all profit for the city. After all Cabellas can get a deal from someone else like Moore who just posted the highest sales tax collections per capita in the state of Oklahoma.

You are looking at it too narrowly. It isn't just a matter of subsidy vs. Cabela sales. The only net increase will come from people who don't already shop in OKC and there is a huge expense to OKC for providing services and infrastructure to an increasing land area AND you assume Cabela wouldn't have located there without the subsidy when we know that they would have.

We're a largely blue collar town more apt to count pennies. The San Fransisco medium family income is over $90,000 and Oklahoma City's is about $44,000. I'm sure their housing is higher but it's a rich town. Just a thought.

Their average house costs 8x what a house does here. My son and daughter are in SF (as am I right now) and an average income makes owning a house impossible here. It's not about disposable income, it's a mindset. They see chains as cheesy.

It's not about disposable income, it's a mindset. They see chains as cheesy.

^This. I see the desire for most chain stores to be a generational search for acceptance, approval, or some kind of validation.

That is just it. There is no risk. The city will get the money back in 7 years and then it is all profit. Cabelas will also feed the other stores in Chisholm Creek and the memorial corridor. They will also collect sales tax which is all profit for the city. After all Cabellas can get a deal from someone else like Moore who just posted the highest sales tax collections per capita in the state of Oklahoma.

Why should ANY entity give Cabela's money to build?

You are looking at it too narrowly. It isn't just a matter of subsidy vs. Cabela sales. The only net increase will come from people who don't already shop in OKC and there is a huge expense to OKC for providing services and infrastructure to an increasing land area AND you assume Cabela wouldn't have located there without the subsidy when we know that they would have.

This is another example of the "new capitalism" that stretches from Wall Street to Memorial Road and points beyond. Profits are privatized, capital investments and risk are shared by the taxpayer.

This is another example of the "new capitalism" that stretches from Wall Street to Memorial Road and points beyond. Profits are privatized, capital investments and risk are shared by the taxpayer.

Yep, and as an actual capitalist it is making me sick. If Cabela has data that shows where they should locate then that is where they need to locate. If they pick an inferior location because of some handouts then the taxpayers should get a huge say in picking that inferior location, but giving them money and the letting them pick their own location is crazy. OKC should have been able to select a location that was best for the long-term interest of the City, not for the short term interest of Cabela and strip mall developers.

It's an absurd way to do things but in some ways it's needed because retail is hesitant to come which results in poor choice for the consumer. Not ideal but it's something. I'm not sure how I feel about it though.