What, exactly, would Lawrence hope to learn from a study of its retail leakage? And how would city officials use that information?

The 2010 Retail Market Report released by the city’s planning department last week raised some legitimate concern about how many retail dollars Lawrence residents are taking to other communities. Notably, the study showed a decline in the city’s sales tax revenue and in the city’s retail “pull” factor. These factors are, indeed, cause for concern. So, how should the city address this issue? How about another study?

That’s what the city’s Retail Task force is suggesting: a study that could cost upward of $70,000 to gather data on the type of sales occurring in Lawrence and what types of merchandise local residents leave the city to buy. The Lawrence City Commission hasn’t set a date to consider the request for a second study, and before commissioners take up the issue, they should carefully consider how the study would serve the city.

The data on what stores pull Lawrence residents elsewhere would be interesting, but how would it be used? Perhaps officials hope to use that information to entice some large retail chains to consider locating in Lawrence, but it’s unlikely that the study will tell those chains anything they don’t already know. It’s easy enough for Costco, for instance, to see how many memberships it sells to Lawrence residents. It’s unlikely that many chain stores will be swayed by the city’s figures if their own location experts have decided Lawrence won’t be a profitable market for them.

This recalls the recent rejection of a request by Lowe’s for a store near Sixth Street and Folks Road. City officials said they were in favor of Lowe’s coming to Lawrence but not at that site. By claiming to know more about the local retail climate than Lowe’s did, the city rejected a top-flight retailer that would employ about 120 people and bring in new sales tax revenue.

Perhaps retail advocates envision the city taking this a step further by using the new study as a basis to provide incentives for businesses that fill a perceived local retail “need.” Those might even include certain financial incentives, not unlike those used to attract business and industry to the community. This is a slippery slope. What criteria would city officials use to identify stores that would fill certain retail needs, and how would the existing stores that would compete with those businesses feel about city incentives for those businesses?

The city’s right for being concerned about the retail sector, but paying for another study to quantify the leakage problem may not be the best way to address the problem. A better strategy might be to look at how city and chamber of commerce efforts can make Lawrence a more attractive destination for new retail projects. Perhaps task force members want to use the study to convince city officials that they should try harder to accommodate certain new retail developments.

Retail chains already have all the information they need on where their stores can be profitable. A study that details where Lawrence is losing retail sales would seem to be of little benefit in attracting new retail to the city.