I say it’s naïve as supermarkets, like everyone else, pursue their own interest. They’re a critical base tenant in a shopping centre and know it, but if forced to accept competition, will pay a lesser rent. To make the development viable then necessitates the developer charging higher rents to the other non-supermarket tenancies, which added costs will be reflected in their pricing. Ergo; no net benefit to consumers.
I bought my first block of shops sixty years back. Such monopolistic clauses were in every retail lease back then. Today my company owns the most CBD retail premises in Wellington and such clauses no longer appear, nor are sought in retail leases. Here’s why.
