Laserfiche WebLink
JDEDZ PROJECT REVIEW <br /> SEPTEMBER 2017 <br /> Figure 8 <br /> E=COMMERCE SHARE OF TOTAL RETAIL-SALES. <br /> 14.0% <br /> 1 — — 11.7% <br /> 2.0% -- <br /> 10.6% <br /> 10.0% 9.5% <br /> 8.7% <br /> 7.9% • <br /> 8.0% • — M.; <br /> 6.0% — - - <br /> 4.0% — <br /> 2.0% — <br /> . <br /> 0.0% — — — —2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 <br /> Source:Internet Retailer analysis of U.S.Commerce Department figures that factors out the sales of <br /> goods not normally purchased online such as automobiles,fuel,and sales in restaurants and bars. <br /> This trend shows no sign of abating, and it requires a rethinking of the retail square footage that <br /> any given amount of demand will support. While new stores and shopping centers will certainly <br /> thrive in the coming years, the quantity and location of those spaces is in flux. Retailers and <br /> shopping center developers are acutely aware of this reality, and Pleasanton should be, as well. <br /> Having established that household demand should be based on 19.1% of income rather than <br /> 25%, and that holding constant even that lower share demand share is unrealistic, it is clear that <br /> a thorough analysis of market demand in Pleasanton might change the finding of the ALH report <br /> that Costco and the rest of the JDEDZ retail mix will have negligible impact on the Pleasanton <br /> market. <br /> It is worth noting that California does require merchants to collect and remit the municipal share <br /> of sales tax for reported online sales to Pleasanton residents, but that still misses a substantial <br /> (if currently unknowable) share of sales (made by small merchants either on their own sites or <br /> through a marketplace such as Amazon or EBay). <br /> Civic Economics 16 <br />