CBS Marketwatch reported this week that Wal-Mart opened up its first “smaller” super center meant for urban areas. CBS notes that many communities have passed ordinances to ban large stores, so Wal-Mart is getting smaller. The smaller prototype in Tampa,Florida is 99,000 square feet, almost half the size of the typical supercenter, which can run from 184,000 s.f. to more than 200,000 s.f. stores. The joke about this store, of course, is that “small” is a relative term to Goliath. In this case, the store is still larger than two football fields, and still objectionable on scale grounds. But a 99,000 s.f. store would come in just under the ban on stores 100,000 s.f. or larger that are cropping up in some California towns. Many communities are passing dimensional limits of 50,000 s.f., which still beats Wal-Mart at its game, but some communities will get hurt by a store that just noses its way under the cap limit.
Ironically, Wal-Mart’s real estate spokesperson in Stoughton, Wisconsin just told residents there that the company could not build a store to meet the city’s new 110,000 s.f. cap. In that city, Wal-Mart tried to convince officials to let them have a 155,000 s.f. store, because anything smaller would be underserving their customers. Apparently they are not under-serving their Florida customers with a 99,000 s.f. store, yet they can’t build a 110,000 s.f. store in Wisconsin. The lesson here is very clear: if more and more communities would set a limit on the size of stores, Wal-Mart would have a simple choice: build smaller, or lose the market share. They will choose the market share every time. Wal-Mart is legally challenging ordinances that limit the inside use of square footage for selling non-taxabable items like groceries — but they are not challenging straight caps on size. Dimensional limits are hard to challenge in court, because communities have the right to limit the size, location and use of land. For more, search this database by “caps.”
