I always get a kick out of small-government Republicans using government to subvert the “free market” when it suits their purposes. Such is the case involving the planned move of the Nordstrom department store from the Redondo Beach Galleria to Torrance’s Del Amo Shopping Center.
A little background: The Galleria was built by the City of Redondo Beach using the broad subterfuge allowed in the creation of government subsidies through Redevelopment Districts during the 1980s. The previous mall was a “blighted area,” but it was primarily so because it was mismanaged and left to deteriorate in its open-air, 1950s’ design.
The key “anchor tenant” brought in by the new owners, the California Public Employee Retirement System and Forest City, which also operated the new mall, was Nordstrom. It was the desired brand name, given its high-profile level of quality and service. (In fact, quaint as it may sound today, the existence of a Nordstrom in one’s community was only surpassed by the placement of a Starbucks as an indication of that city’s “arrival” on the economic scene.)
Now, after the expiration of their lease at the Galleria, Nordstrom has chosen to move to what they consider a more desirable space at the newly refurbished Del Amo Center. They are not breaking a lease. They have just done what the free market calls for. They found something better, more efficient and more attractive. “Free marketeers” should rejoice.
However, rather than joy, lawsuits have erupted. The City of Redondo Beach has filed a lawsuit against the City of Torrance for, allegedly, not performing the proper environmental paperwork for a small piece of this new mall refurbishment. In fact, not only are the issues raised in the lawsuit hazy in their facts, it is downright stupid.
The real reason for the lawsuit is a desperate attempt by the City to retain the sales tax revenue from Nordstrom. It is, in fact, a major sales tax contributor and is one of the city’s larger employers. If anything, this desperation is indicative of the wacky reliance of cities on sales tax revenue since other sources of income, such as property taxes, have been severely constrained by law.
Nevertheless, the problem here is not that Nordstrom is leaving, but that there is no contingency plan to replace it. If the Galleria is an enticing location, and, knowing that this lease is coming up for renewal, marketing efforts to “tee up” a replacement should have been underway. It seems they have not.
Shame on the Galleria and shame on the City.
Another issue is that it is not in the best long-term benefit of the City to be suing another for such an arcane reason, seeing that a major development project, which will be skirting many environment minefields, is looming at the City’s waterfront. Traffic issues alone will affect neighboring cities which, under the requirements being demanded in this minor case, may bollocks up a major undertaking if surrounding cities wish to play “tit-for-tat.”
As a long-time colleague once said about people in government, “You can’t legislate stupid.”
