The Madison City Council is currently considering legislation that raises serious questions about the long-term economic growth potential of the city. In a move that follows other municipalities around the country — as far as Colorado and Massachusetts yet as close as Stoughton and Sun Prairie — the council is proposing regulations that will restrict the freedom of large “big box” retailers to develop stores that make economic sense and allow only stores that fit the council’s ideals.

As of this article’s writing, the latest draft of the proposal places restrictions on stores larger than 40,000 square feet and caps construction at a maximum size of 100,000 square feet per story. Facilities between 40,000 and 100,000 square feet would be required to meet strict aesthetic standards and would be required to limit parking space to no more than half of the total property footprint.

Supporters of the regulation argue that big-box establishments such as Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy and others create cheap, generic cubes that inefficiently use land and have negative environmental and aesthetic impacts on the community. Ald. Austin King, District 8, was kind enough to take the time to share with this writer some of his thoughts on the proposal.

According to King, big-box structures are “gigantic and hideous,” and are the result of “bottom line” planning. King describes big-box parking lots as concrete slabs covered with “cigarette butts and oil slicks” that lead to environmental problems in neighboring ecosystems. King supports the ordinance, which he believes will force retailers to adapt their models to move into Madison because it will mean profits in the long run.

These contentions seem noble, and on the surface are hard to dispute. Unfortunately, the issue is not so clear-cut. Many national retail chains have “cookie cutter” prototypes for their stores that are designed to work within a particular business model. Stores are laid in a certain fashion and buildings are designed to meet the chain’s prototype. These models are highly tested and refined by the retailers to be efficient and cost effective. Operations departments are thus reluctant to build stores that stray from the model. The proposed ban would force them to do just that.

King believes that the 100,000 square-foot cap would encourage stores to plan their inventory around a maximum size and not plan their size around an inventory that includes every sort of product imaginable. Another option King proposes is that boxes could build multistory multiuse structures to house their huge inventories. But the more likely alternative is that large retailers will stay away from Madison and choose more business-friendly municipalities in which to operate.

Another big supporter of the ordinance, Ald. Brenda Konkel, District 2, was quoted as saying, “As a city, we should have a vision about what type of business we want to support.”

This statement strikes deep at the heart of what this ban is really about. Many of the supporters of the proposal are notoriously anti-business and anti-urban sprawl. Placing arbitrary size limits and strict aesthetic guidelines on businesses that have hugely successful prototypes is an attempt by this city’s progressive leadership to curb the influx of national business into the city.

The Economic Development Commission has argued that at a time when the mayor and city are “seeking ways to make the city more business-friendly, this ordinance appears to be going in the opposite direction.” Supporters of the law such as the sponsor, Ald. Ken Goldman, District 10, dismiss commission members as “cowards” for thinking regulation will keep chains out of Madison, adding, “Let them flee if they want to build that shit in Madison.” This quote exposes Golden as a zealot whose bottom line is keeping national chains out of Madison.

Brenda Konkel is correct that “as a city we should have a vision about what type of business we want to support.” She is wrong in thinking that city leadership should make the decision for us. We as a city can decide what we want to support by deciding where to shop. Right now the big-box retailers in their bland, generic structures provide the products we need, at prices that almost everyone can afford, conveniently all under one roof. If Madisonians decide that the costs of big-box structures in their current forms out-weigh the benefits they offer, the stores will be forced to shut their doors. If the City Council passes this ordinance, which sources tell the Herald it certainly will, they will be doing Madison consumers a huge disservice.

Adam Smith ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in economics and political science.