Should We Restrict Undesirable Shops?

[youngmafbog]

I have some sympathy with the labour party here. Streams of Bookies, pay day loans and charity shops bring a high street down.

On the other hand owners of shops (and that is many of us since pension funds own quite a few) need to bring money in. With draconian business rates they would have to pay otherwise can we actually dictate against certain types of business, even if in the same class as what is already approved ?

http://news.sky.com/story/1075122/labour-wants-payday-lenders-off-high-street

[DangerUXD]

I see where they are comming from but none of these places would exist without the eejits that use them. They also carry some resposibility.

[Old_Geezer]

I can see issues with deciding what constitutes an "undesirable shop". One man's meat being another man's poison, so to speak. For example should we ban off-licences ? How about tobacconists ? Or hairdressers ? But I think trades that prey on the misery of the vulnerable ought to be illegal anyway, so whether they have a shop or not ought to be irrelevant. Pass the law, allow the pay-day astronomic interest places to get a shop, then you'd know where to go and arrest them.

[FredPuli43]

Quite, UXD. We might as well refuse off-licences because people spend money in them, money which they may ill-afford. That they may go to payday lenders in the same street, in consequence, is not cured by removing the shops. Payday firms are all over TV and promise instant loans without the need of finding a shop. Can't see that the presence of a shop is any more of an inducement to borrow than the ads are.

[emmie]

don't you think though if we didn't have a plethora of bookies, and some places have three or four in the same street, that some poor people might be saved from their own folly. I know they could go to another place to put a bet on, but the same is said for these robbing pay day loans places, some may need to use them, but maybe if they weren't there, some other more useful business might take up the space. I maintain that the death knell for many places starts with the council, high rents, rates, then the charity shops move in, and by then it's too late to stop the rot.

[Gromit]

I think the Labour Party are wrong on this. As long as gambling is legal then I cannot see how a local council can have the power to restrict their business by refusing them premises. Same with loan companies.

The high Street is dying because we prefer to shop at large supermarkets. That means there are lots of empty premises which attract the kind of businesses that reflect badly on an area.

The high Street in my town is exactly as described by Labour. They forgot to mention tattooists, we have 3 of those. But I am afraid we are stuck with them. The Butchers, Bakers, Newsagents, fish shops that we would prefer to be there have gone because we buy in Tescos, Sainsbury's and Morrisons etc.

[atalanta]

What really gets up my nose about charity shops is that they are allowed to sell new goods, not just second-hand ones. Thus they compete with regular shops which do have to pay all their overheads, salaries, tax, etc.

[Sharingan]

The reason thee are lots of charity shops is that they are exempt from business rates so can afford a higher rent payment. This keeps rents on high streets artificially high and stops other types of business from being able to afford to rent them. My brother had a real problem with this when he was looking for retail premises, but to answer the question no I don't think certain businesses should be frowned on.

[joko]

i agree with the bookies and payday loans type shops being annoying - there are loads and they promote potentially negative situation

but charity shops are hardly a problem - they help prevent the enormous waste of perfectly good things, that is so prevalent in our society and also help a worthy cause.

I for one prefer to have as many as possible.

i understand the issue of competing with local businesses, but people who shop in charity shops will shop in them regardless, they will travel if necessary so it will make no difference.

regarding selling new stuff - so what? what would you suggest is done with unused donations? put them in the bin because they are brand new?
why should they? donations are donations.

[emmie]

i mentioned this before, but distant relatives live in a rather antiquated sleepy town, in two streets it has 14 charity shops. The death knell of the place hasn't happened over night.

[Sharingan]

I love charity shops Em10, I usually wear vintage or grunge clothing and don't often buy much new if I can help it, it's all junble sales, Ebay or charity shops but it does make it very difficult for anyone to open a shop when estate agents know that they can command larger rents because charities will take them. If the government wanted to help new businesses that's something they might want to look at.

[Old_Geezer]

Charity shops, of themselves, are not so bad: but when the new item shops have gone and all you have left are the pre-owned goods shops, it doesn't make for a cheerful looking place. Gives the place a run down feel. Still a community gets what it allows I suppose. If the convenience and low cost of the hypermarket trumps the beauty of a group of local stores for the buyers, this is what happens.

[Canary42]

No I don't think we should restrict certain types of shops - but try opening a sex shop in a sleepy Cotswold village :)

[emmie]

as someone explained to me, that once a charity shop gets a hold, there will be another and another, not just that they get discounted rents, rates, but that they can spell the end of a small high street in no time at all. The councils should be doing more to promote new business, and not penalise those people with such high rents and rates. How can anyone have 14 charity shops, it's bonkers. As to our local shops, all the goods ones have gone, everything you would consider useful to the community at large.