Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Tofino council looks at banning chain stores

March 9th, 2010 · 30 Comments

Just spotted this item (by brilliant Langara journalism grad!!) on the Sun’s website, about Tofino looking at disallowing chains like Tim Horton’s, Starbucks and McD’s. I’ve been wondering when some town in B.C. would do that.

One of my favourite places that I’ve visited in my travels the last few years is Telluride, because they don’t allow any chains. (Though tragically they do allow multi-millionaires to build ginormous third or fourth vacation homes there.) And it’s why Silver Star is one of my favourite ski resorts, where you get to eat in quirky places that are resolutely home-grown.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Hoarse Whisperer

    OK, this just clinches the Telluride trip!

  • Brenton

    I’m not 100% certain, but I’m pretty sure that Sun Peaks (which is now a resort-municipality) had a ban on chain stores when I lived there a decade ago. There is a Delta hotel now, and a Helly Hansen store, I think, so I’m not sure how extensive the ban is or if it is still in place.

  • Dan

    A progressive initiative for a place that has a strong tourist industry that will only continue to grow.
    Though we can lament the disproportionate powers and responsibilities between municipal governing structures and the federal-provincial authorities, its nice to see municipalities grasp and assert the mechanisms for control they do have.
    I would assume locally owned retail businesses simply keeps more cash exchange within the community.

    Bravo dudes!

    ps:Denman and Hornby have this too I think. They even have kept out large banks too, having a couple small credit unions instead.

  • Mark Allerton

    Re Hornby: isn’t the co-op part of a chain of sorts?

  • jimmy olson

    Slow Cities, Slow Towns.. .keep dem dumb soulless formulas business out… OUT!

  • gmgw

    The bucolic Tofino that I knew 40+ years ago– and back then it was no more or less charming or quaint than any other semi-isolated BC fishing village– has long since been obliterated by the influx of population that began after the paving of the Alberni-Tofino Highway and the establishment of Pacific Rim Park in 1972. The McDiarmid family, who owned (and I think still own) much of the choice property in and around the town– notably a good chunk of Chesterman’s Beach, where 66′ frontages routinely go for three to five million dollars or more– has profited mightily over the decades from promoting development in the area (Howard McDiarmid was not only Tofino’s only physician in the late 60s but also the Socred MLA for the riding). Ironically, back in those days Ucluelet was considered to be much the cooler locale; it was more welcoming than then-overtly-redneck Tofino to the hippies and wannabees who in summer drifted by the hundreds from the cities to places like Wreck (Florencia) Bay and Schooner Cove (among their burgeoning numbers was fresh-outta-high-school yours truly).

    What I’m labouriously leading up to here is that by all accounts (I haven’t ventured out to Long Beach in many years, preferring to remember the area as it was) this is merely closing another of the barn doors, long after the horses are gone. I’m happy to see chain stores of any kind frozen out of anywhere at any time, but in Tofino at this late date I have to wonder what the point is. The damage would appear to be done. Nice gesture, I suppose, but the powers that be in Tofino would have done better to have long since imposed much more severe restrictions and guidelines on any and all types of commercial or private development, if their intention was to preserve the village’s now mythical “charm”. Instead they’ve facilitated and encouraged the creation of Aspen-on-Sea. Ban Starbucks and Mickey D’s? Why bother, at this late date?

    I would, however, cite the examples of two wildly disparate cities that have met the chain-store/fast-food juggernaut head-on and refused to be cowed by it: Salzburg, Austria, and Santa Barbara, California, each of which has scrupulously maintained a very specific look to its town centre by forcing incoming chains to adapt. In Santa Barbara the retention of the Mission Revival look that defines the city is accomplished by simply not permitting any property owner or developer to deviate from it. Hence you will see McDonald’s on the main street, but with a red tile roof that resembles those of its neighbours. Similarly, the shopping streets of central Salzburg are resplendent with a wonderful assemblage of rococo wrought-iron signage– carefully preserved by development restrictions to which even McDonald’s was famously required to conform (see: http://www.smh.com.au/news/europe/for-richer-for-poorer/2006/02/03/1138836410640.html).

    Can the chains be forced to submit? If the will is there, is it possible for a city government to impose its conditions on chains who wish to locate there. It is even possible to keep them out entirely (though civic governments come and go; witness the ultimately losing struggle to keep Wal-Mart out of Vancouver, shaped as that struggle was by shifting political winds). But it’s a practice that has to be started early. So I’ll say it again of Tofino: Barn doors. Horses. Simple equation. Nice gesture, but what does it matter now?
    gmgw

  • Urbanismo

    Yes, I did the West Coast trail before they put in bridges and pay-as-you-go turn styles.

    We owned waterfront on Long Beach, next to Moray’s cabins before the gas station went in. Even then we preferred Ucluelet: that was before council got “international” delusions: and yeah real estate skyrocketed!

    The kids still talk of Cree, the gentle horse that wandered Long Beach, in front of our place.

    We were expropriated for that “phuccin’ park”.

    Tofino was just starting up the whale watchers. I can never figure out how they get the Hump Backs to flip their flukes on cue: I see ’em all the time in the Salish Sea but I can’t get them to fluke-flip for me! Do the “watchers” harass them with sonar or something?

    Nanaimo has the grand delusion it is a statistical tourist Mecca. What the stats freaks miss is that all those stats pouring off the ferries aren’t interested in Nan: they’re high tailing it, tout de suite, to watch whales in Tof!

    No logos eh! Huh, hadn’t noticed.

  • Bill Smolick

    So how do they propose to write this? How do you define a “chain” store? Choice is a chain store with multiple locations in Vancouver and Kelowna: are they banned? Honey’s Doughnuts had two locations at one point: is that a chain?

    I’ve a friend who said Vancouver should “ban WalMart.” Does this mean you pass a bylaw that says “If your store name is WalMart you can’t open.” What stops WalMart from opening a store called VanMart?

    Tim Hortons is a franchise operation which means that *if* a Hortons opens it would probably be owned by a local. Is that really THAT much different than the Common Loaf. (Yes…yes it is…I mean that in an abstract theoretical way…trust me, I’d still be eating at the Common Loaf.)

    The city needs to use its powers to define the type of town that it’s looking for and then compel *any* store that opens to fit those zoning regulations. If McDonalds wants to move in (and why would they? Would anybody eat there?) you don’t flex your rules to accommodate them: you force them to fit your plan.

  • spartikus

    Just to note that Granville Island has a similar ban.

  • michael geller

    GMGW excellent post!

    When the design and development parameters for Granville Island were first developed, it was decided that no business could locate if it already had another location. Over the years the policy has changed somewhat, but it has contributed to the somewhat unique sense of place.

    When the UniverCity community at SFU was first planned, we decided on a similar strategy. As a result, there was the Renaissance Cafe (instead of Starbucks) occupying the prime retail corner overlooking the town square. Again, with the arrival of Nesters and other businesses, the policy has been modified, but significant design requirements remain in place to try and create a special sense of place on the mountain.

    I agree with GMGW that while it may not always be feasible to overly restrict which businesses locate, it is feasible and desirable to control the design of their premises, especially in terms of overall street design, signage, light levels, etc. Fortunately, some of the chains are beginning to realize that they have to comply with local guidelines if they want to be in a particular community…

    And fortunately, there remain places like Carmel California where street lights and certain businesses will continue to be banned for the foreseeable future, so we can still discover a distinctive sense of place…

  • Frank Bucholtz

    Fort Langley residents have in effect enacted such a ban. There are no chain outlets in the village, other than a locally-owned IGA grocery store. Any move by McDonalds, Tim Hortons or Starbucks to locate there would meet with massive resistance and an informal or even formal boycott. A tiny McDonalds logo on street banners erected some years ago was carefully cut out of each banner by people who do not want chain outlets to have any presence there. There is no official ban of any kind – it’s simply active citizens standing up for keeping their village one of small, independent businesses. Chain outlets likely are fully aware of this feeling and thus have made no effort to locate in Fort Langley, which also has no branch of the “Big 5” banks, one gas station and a very healthy and vibrant business community.

  • Joe Just Joe

    I applaud the effort of citizens to avoid the chains and for the most part I avoid them as well. I don’t know if it’s something that can be completely kept out though. It was only a few years ago that the same things were said about Commercial drive, but now they have a Starbucks and a Timmys and both seem to be doing very well. They did however seem to rid themselves of the McDs.

  • gmgw

    The alleged “ban” on chain stores and franchises on Granville Island has proven to be porous at times. One of the very first restaurants to open on the Island in the very early days of its makeover from industrial to commercial was the Keg outlet, which is still there and still considered something of an anchor tenant. There’s been a Sammy J. Pepper’s at the Island’s entrance for a decade, and some years ago there was quite a controversy when the Kid’s Market, which leases out the small building immediately to the south that contains the Umbrella Shop and Pedro’s Coffee (which itself was preceded by an outlet of the local Pastel’s chain), tried to strike a deal with A&W to open a franchise on that site. The Kid’s Market administration, who are not inclined to compromise on much of anything, only backed down after public protests threatened to erupt. And of course there’s the former Cat’s Meow resto/pub, now the Cat’s Social House, part of the local Brown’s chain (but it’s still a pain in the butt for nearby residents who, during warm weather, have for years had to put up with the nightly racket that comes from the bellowing yahoos who drink themselves sodden on the Cat’s patio until 2 AM most nights). And occasional ugly rumours still surface that CMHC would like to attract a major fast-food chain into opening a mini-outlet in the fast-food area of the Market.

    The presence on the Island of businesses like the Keg figured in the huge controversy that erupted in 1997-98 when Michael Seelig and Abe Sacks, the owners of Bridges, put forward a proposal to redevelop the largely empty (and now all but condemned) building behind the Granville Island Brewery (which, ironically, is still thought of by many visitors as a cottage brewery when in fact its production is done primarily at a plant in the Okanagan. They have long had only one vat left, used for demonstration purposes only). The development, to be called “Under the Bridge”, was glitzier, flashier and more upscale than anything that’s been proposed for GI before or since. Still, it might have gone ahead but for a miscalculation on the developers’ part: Their anchor tenant was to be a six-screen Famous Players movieplex. This, as the saying goes, really set the cat among the pigeons, and for nearly a year the controversy raged. A coalition of nearby residents and some Island merchants organized in opposition to the proposal and to that end vigorously and effectively lobbied not only CMHC (who were in full support of the proposal, figuring it would revitalize the Island– at that time seen to be in the doldrums– and make it a viable and popular night-time destination instead of merely a daytime concern), but also City Council, upon whose decision the fate of the project rested. This might seem odd, as Granville Island is in fact Federal land and, as such, technically not subject to development, zoning and other guidelines imposed by the City. But as a sort of good-nighbour policy, CMHC has always agreed to be bound to and to observe those guidelines, just as they subject themselves to enforcement of city statutes governing, for instance, noise issues and licensed premises.

    To make a long and rather complex story short, after months of wrangling the development finally came before Council for a vote in October 1998 and was turned down near-unanimously (the only member of Council to vote in favour was then-Mayor Philip Owen). It was felt that the development was not at all in keeping with the Island’s character and could damage same irrevocably if allowed to proceed. It was also felt that the development would lead to substantially increased car traffic and attendant problems. Assorted lawsuits ensued and some repercussions persist to this day.

    The reason I’ve gone into this in some detail is that at the time one of the arguments commonly made by the “Under the Bridge” proponents was that in view of the fact that chains like the Keg were already in operation on the island, this should be taken as a precedent that would justify more of the same, and Famous Players should not be shut out merely because it was, in fact, a major theatre chain. That was not an easy argument to refute. The toes were (and are) in the door, though fortunately there are not many of them. Those of us who closely monitor events on Granville Island remain concerned that this argument may surface again someday, should someone try to convince CMHC that a development proposal can both harmonize with the Island’s atmosphere and incorporate a major franchise of some kind. Vigilance is needed. As many Island merchants and leaseholders will tell you, CMHC has repeatedly proven itself to be at best an untrustworthy administrator of both Granville Island and of the Market at the Island’s heart– and it continues to be. Should some new group of sharpies come up with, say, “Under the Bridge Revisited” some time in the indeterminate future, and should CMHC once again allow itself to be seduced, then in the words of Yogi Berra, it’s likely to be “deja vu all over again”.
    gmgw

  • spartikus

    LOL – I stand corrected. Thanks for the history lesson 🙂

  • Bill Lee

    “brilliant Langara journalism grad”

    I thought that they were all on page 3 of this : http://www.langara.bc.ca/creative-arts/journalism/media/pdfs/LJR-2009.pdf

    … and then disappeared from ‘print’

    More issue of LJR at http://www.langara.bc.ca/creative-arts/journalism/publications.html

  • Bill Smolick

    Jamie’s Whaling Station has a location in both Tofino and Ucluelet, making it something of a chain? Does it now violate this ban (which I gather from the National Post has now been successfully passed.)

    This is going to wind up in court.

  • spartikus

    Jamie’s Whaling Station has a location in both Tofino and Ucluelet, making it something of a chain?

    I think the Tofino town council would be able to define “chain” as anything they want. For example making the criteria 3 stores instead of 2. Isn’t this the very definition of zoning? Almost every city and town in the world reserves the right to say where and what kind of businesses can set up shop at certain locations.

    And when they can afford to be, many private shopping malls are similarly picky, are they not? You don’t see XXX shops at Metrotown. Or maybe there are…I haven’t been there for years…

  • Bill Smolick

    Metrotown is a private business, and any restrictions they impose have little relevance with respect to considering zoning.

    Saying there’s no chains in Tofino is disingenuous: the Best Western Tin-Wis is a chain hotel. I’m not sure that it fall into “Tofino” from a zoning perspective, but that’s a technicality.

    Half the major retailers there sell Patagonia gear that’s imported from the U.S.A.: is that really all that different than buying stuff at a Baby Gap owned by a local franchisee?

    The reality is (as has been pointed out above) chains haven’t come to Tofino because the market’s not big enough. It’s also certainly not a year round market: even some local businesses close in the winter there. When I first visited Tofino as an adult I couldn’t even get cell phone service on my phone which was, I think, a Bell phone at the time. That was 11 years ago.

    *If* the market gets big enough, I’m willing to guarantee that one of the major chains will take this to court. Tim Hortons or McDonalds most likely, as both have formulas for small stores that could easily fit a Tofino location.

    I’m not, incidentally, saying I *want* chains in Tofino. I generally avoid them, though I do buy clothes at Banana Republic when office dress codes require it). I don’t buy bike parts at the MEC, preferring to support my favourite small retailer (go Mighty Riders!)

    I just think town councils need to make these types of decisions rationally, within a legal framework rather than passing bylaws that aren’t half baked and ill thought out.

  • spartikus

    I’m willing to guarantee that one of the major chains will take this to court.

    Genuinely curious: Under what principle? There isn’t an absolute right to commerce in the Charter.

    Here’s a story about San Francisco’s efforts to restrict chain stores. Of note:

    The City’s first ban on chain stores — described as businesses with more than 10 locations nationwide

  • Brenton

    each of which has scrupulously maintained a very specific look to its town centre by forcing incoming chains to adapt.

    Or closer to home, Kimberley requires stores to conform to its Bavarian theme in its downtown core, which is only slightly preposterous given that it isn’t in Bavaria.

  • Bill Smolick

    Likely violation of international trade agreements and discrimination. You need to remember that a corporation is legally treated in a manner very similar to a person, and a discriminatory ban could be prosecuted as such.

    At the extreme, if Tofino passed a law that said “You can’t get a business permit if your store name is spartikus” the law would be clearly discriminatory.

    Kimberly is *entirely* preposterous, BUT such a law that requires an aesthetic is exactly the *sort* of thing that Tofino should be doing. Don’t zone for the business, zone for the community and require the businesses to comply.

    Toronto’s Beach neighbourhood did this, and McDonalds open a small store front that completely fit the neighbourhood.

    Sadly, it’s also very busy despite the fact that there are many locally owned and operated non-chain businesses nearby.

  • spartikus

    “You can’t get a business permit if your store name is spartikus” the law would be clearly discriminatory.

    I’m no lawyer, but I believe the above would be considered a bill of attainder. But if I was “spartikus’s coal burning, ltd” I think Tofino would be within it’s rights to ban me by banning coal burning. In other words, banning a class of business.

    I guess my point is other jurisdictions have similar bans (including in the U.S. of A.) that have held up over time.

  • Ron

    On the municipal governance side – a municipality cannot discriminate in establishing its bylaws.
    (Note: Granville Island is federal lands, not subject to municipal zoning, but they have some sort of a harmonization agreement in place with the City)

    i.e. you cannot prohibit a business from setting up shop because of who they are.

    You can, however, impose legitimate planning principles in place to restrict land uses and built forms. i.e. You can restrict maximum store sizes. You can restrict retail uses. You can restrict built forms (and to some extent, design and style). Under the Vancouver Charter, the City of Vancouver has broader powers in this regard than other municipalities have under the Local Government Act.

    Ultimately, if the public doesn’t want a store, it won’t patronize it. There are constant examples of chain stores closing down due to poor business at the location (as opposed to financial problems with the parent company).

    The RONA on Bridgeport & No. 3 Rd. in Richmond closed due to poor sales one or two years after opening.

    Urban Fare quietly closed its Edmonton location after it failed.

    In the 1990s when The Bay bought out Woodward’s – at West Vancouver’s Park Royal, The Bay moved to the old Woodward’s store in the north mall, and The Bay store in the south mall was carved up and a Zeller’s opened up. West Vancouver’s elite didn’t patronize the Zeller’s and it soon closed up shop (that space is now split among a number of big boxish retailers).
    Meanwhile, the Zeller’s at Oakridge is still there.

  • Ron

    Spartikus is right – the municipality can prohibit a “class of business” – but that would have to be based on, say, land use – something within the scope of municipal power – not based on the company’s ownership structure (i.e. chain stores with a common parent company).

    The classic discrimination case is Shell Canada v City of Vancouver – a Supreme Court of Canada decision. Although the scope of the subject matter is slightly different than proposed by Tofino, it provides some insight.

    http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1994/1994scr1-231/1994scr1-231.html

  • spartikus

    The classic discrimination case is Shell Canada v City of Vancouver – a Supreme Court of Canada decision.

    Ah, excellent. Again I throw myself at the mercy of experts, but looking over the case, this too strikes me as a sort of bill of attainder.

    Things that jumped out:

    Vancouver passing resolutions that it would not do business with Shell until Shell “completely withdraws from South Africa”

    and…

    Vancouver was seeking to use its powers to do business to affect matters in another part of the world, a purpose which is directed at matters outside the City’s territorial limits.

    and…

    While discrimination for commercial or business reasons is a power that is incidental to the powers to carry on business or acquire property, considerations relating to the political policy of a foreign state are not so essential to the exercise of enumerated powers as to be implied.

    In other words, Vancouver punitively targeted a specific business for a purpose one could only describe as foreign policy. I think Vancouver would be within it’s rights to zone out all gas stations…should it choose. But that would be political suicide for whichever party enacted it.

  • Bill Smolick

    > But if I was “spartikus’s coal burning, ltd” I think
    > Tofino would be within it’s rights to ban me by
    > banning coal burning. In other words, banning a
    > class of business.

    Others have followed your comment eloquently and well, I essentially agree with their points.

    Your example is true, but it’s not an example of what Tofino is *trying* to do (at least by my read.) Tofino has restaurants, so attempting to keep “chain restaurants” out is quite different than your example. They have clothing retailers and a bookstore, so how do you tell Chapters/Indigo they can’t open up a Coles outlet?

    You can argue that “chains” are a “class of business” but I’m not sure that would hold up if challenged.

    In any case, the biggest thing Tofino has going for it is its small size and remote location. It will be some time before most chains are interested in locating there.

  • spartikus

    You can argue that “chains” are a “class of business” but I’m not sure that would hold up if challenged.

    Well, again, similar bans exist elsewhere and seem to have held up. And looking over the relevant section of the Local Government Act, it strikes me as quite broad in scope.

    I’m not convinced there is a legal argument against the ban, but as I’ve taken care to note, I’m a layman.

  • Ron

    Whether or not a bylaw holds up depends on whether it has been specifically challenged in court.

    I would suspect that in many cases, there isn’t any desire for business to challenge a bylaw of that sort, either becuase the market isn’t valuable enough for them, they don’t want to raise a stink (where they aren’t wanted anyways), or because they may think that political change will accomplish the same end at lower cost. I wouldn’t expect that a McDonald’s would survive in Tofino, even with summer traffic.

  • Jan Hunt

    The Tofino town council should talk to the Ashland, Oregon city council – no chain stores or chain restaurants are allowed in the downtown district. They have also banned the use of styrofoam anywhere in the city, thus discouraging chain restaurants from opening in other districts. See http://www.ashland.or.us/CodePrint.asp?CodeID=2452 .

  • Barbie

    Irony of ironies. Just as Tofino is enacting a by-law to ban chain stores and restaurants the Vancouver City Park Board approves Cactus Club opening a restaurant on the site of the current food kiosk at English Bay. Unread short sighted decision. Sets a precedent that cannot be undone.