The title of this news report says it all: Ikea not coming - because they'd be too popular. The story points out that
The Environment Court has banned the Swedish-headquartered furniture business from being a tenant in Redwood's new Mt Wellington venture because its stores are so popular it is feared traffic chaos will ensue.So what stores will the Environment Court allow? Ones that no one goes to, so there is no traffic? Or may be ones that people only bike to.
Even if the court is right and traffic problems could occur doesn't the fact that people are willing to pay both the price of the goods they buy and the costs of traffic congestion mean that they must really value those stores? How much consumer surplus must be generated if consumers are willing to pay both in terms of price and congestion? Why ban stores people actually want to go to? Also if people turn up to go to the Ikea will they not go to other stores nearby as well? Isn't having people shop at a mall the whole idea of malls? What logic/cost-benefit analysis did the court use to come to this decision?
(HT: Not PC)