RON DAVIS -- Through My Eyes

In last week’s editorial in the Independent, my editors argued that

Wards and Burlington Coat Factory “deserved” to stay at the rejuvenated

mall, soon to be called The Crossings at Huntington.

While I recognize that I’m biting the hand that feeds me, I must say

that I find their reasoning both troubling and fuzzy headed.

My editors claim that both of these retailers “deserve” to stay for

various reasons, among which are that Wards remained at the mall during

the “dark times,” when other tenants abandoned the mall. In essence, they

argue that the city and the residents should respond to this mistaken

belief that Wards has been loyal.

My editors further argued that both retailers should remain because

they “want” to be a part of the new mall.

In their zest to be warm and fuzzy to these two national retailers,

they failed to consider the rules under which both of these retailers

operate in any community -- the rules of business, rules that give little

weight to loyalty and such emotional terms as “deserve.”

While not particularly germane to the discussion, in my opinion, Wards

contributed to the “dark times.” In the past, the city has approached

Wards to remodel the site for the benefit of the city and the other

tenants. Had they done so, they might have shed some light.

But Wards officials never remodeled, preferring instead to be a part

of the darkness. Big business, whether that’s Wards, Burlington, the

Broadway, JCPenney and others, play by one single rule: the profit rule.

Concerns about community, sales tax revenue, aesthetics or other tenants

are concerns solely when they relate to profits.

Neither Broadway nor JCPenney cared about what our mall would look

like, how the other tenants would manage or our sales tax revenue when

they folded their tents and headed for happier camping sites. And Wards

did not care when its representatives did not remodel their store.

Wards has closed a number of stores throughout the nation despite the

effect on other tenants, the community and the community’s need for sales

tax revenue. Why? Because the profits at these stores didn’t meet company

expectations, that’s why.

I don’t doubt for an instant that Burlington and Wards would jump the

good ship Huntington Beach in an instant if they were capable of

producing a better bottom line elsewhere.

That either of these businesses “want” to remain at the mall is

completely unpersuasive.

Suppose I had a line of auto parts I wanted to sell through

Burlington. Do you think they’d allow me because I wanted to? Don’t you

think they’d look at whether they could use that space selling other,

more profitable and compatible goods than my auto parts?

And does anyone believe that a vendor who has sold goods for the past

30 years to Wards but who no longer sells goods that fit the new Wards

product line would get to first base with the loyalty argument? I

certainly don’t.

I concur with the city and Ezralow’s observation that the time of the

department store-anchored mall has long since bypassed Huntington Beach.

I applaud their vision of constructing something on the order of an

Irvine Spectrum, which focuses on smaller retail establishments, anchored

by higher end restaurants and entertainment. That configuration really

doesn’t exist at our end of the county, and we have an ideal location,

coupled with great demographics, which will allow Huntington Beach to

duplicate that regional success. We will do so as long as we play by the

same business rules that the retailers play by.

And the test under those rules for our new mall is simply what tenant

mix and configuration is in the best interest of the city and the

residents, rather than what’s in the best interest of either Burlington

or Wards. * RON DAVIS is a private attorney who lives in Huntington

Beach. He can be reached by e-mail at o7 RDD@socal.rr.com.f7