Letter: Spreading stores

To the editor:

Regional economists have long known that city grocery stores tend to cluster too close together. That is bad for both  stores and customers. The stores don’t like it because it makes comparison shopping easier and reduces the number of trips people make to stores. Some customers appreciate the easier comparison shopping, but a larger number don’t like the extra travel time and not being able to walk to a grocery for small purchases. Most importantly it causes the food deserts that cover large parts of Lawrence (Journal-World, Jan. 20).

Clustering results from uncoordinated decision-making, kind of like a gridlock when everyone tries to exit the parking lot at once with no traffic cop. Here’s why: The best location for a new grocery store is usually near an existing cluster of stores, but on the side towards the largest number of underserved households. That way the new grocer has first shot at people coming for groceries (until another store gets built).

There is a simple fix (though takes a while to work in a built-up city): Pass a zoning ordinance preventing any new major grocery store within 1.5 miles of any existing major grocery store. That will encourage grocery stores typically located on a 2-mile grid at major arterial intersections, leading to around 10 locations spread evenly across the city. That would be about the same number of major grocery stores we have now, which is what the city customer base can support, but with a better geographical distribution.