Metropolitan areas that straddle the county or even state lines have a unique dilemma. If one municipality denies a development, the municipality across the border can approve it. Enter Leawood, Kansas, known for its tree-lined streets, high-income households, and a strong emphasis on maintaining a refined, residential character. But for all its prestige, Leawood is facing a quiet economic challenge: a retail gap driven by restrictive zoning policies—particularly the decision to disallow big box retailers like Walmart, Home Depot, and Target. Across the border sits Kansas City, Missouri, more than happy to pick up those retailers to add to their tax basis. But where does that leave Leawood?
While these policies reflect the city’s desire to uphold a specific aesthetic and community feel, they come with a significant cost. When a city limits certain types of commercial development, especially large-format stores that serve a broad range of consumer needs, it often forces residents to spend their money elsewhere. Residents often talk about the time a home improvement store attempted to go into Leawood, but after being denied by the city, the company simply built its store directly across the state line in Kansas City, Missouri—right where Leawood residents could still easily shop, but with none of the tax revenue flowing back to their own city. This story illustrates a core issue with Leawood’s current development approach. By saying “no” to big box stores, the city isn’t stopping consumer demand. It’s just redirecting that demand—and the associated tax dollars—elsewhere.
Retail gap analysis data from our Retail Gap Database provides a stark look at what this looks like on paper. At the intersection of 95th and Mission Road—a one-mile radius that includes about 10,000 people and over 4,000 households—there are significant deficits in key retail categories:
- Home Centers: $6.2 million gap
- Furniture Stores: $5.7 million gap
- Family Clothing Stores: $8.2 million gap
- Warehouse Superstores: $28.4 million gap
- Department Stores: $18.5 million gap
Similarly, the area surrounding 135th and Mission shows even more severe shortages:
- Home Centers: $6 million gap
- Warehouse Superstores: $21.8 million gap
- Full-Service Restaurants: $12.1 million gap
- Family Clothing Stores: $6.4 million gap
- Shoe Stores: $2.3 million gap
In some categories, demand is nearly entirely unmet within Leawood’s borders—despite high local incomes and purchasing power. For example, the 135th Street area shows 100% gaps for appliance and electronics stores, paint and wallpaper stores, and nursery & garden centers.
While many residents support Leawood’s development restrictions, the data shows the clear consequence: lost economic opportunity. Not only are tax revenues leaking across city lines, but local businesses also miss out on potential foot traffic that larger anchor tenants could help generate. Moreover, retail development doesn’t have to come at the expense of character. Cities in close proximity to Leawood like Overland Park and Lenexa have successfully welcomed national retailers within well-designed developments that enhance, rather than detract from, the community feel.
Ultimately, retail gaps aren’t just about shopping convenience, they’re about economic sustainability. Leawood has the demographic strength, income levels, and market demand to support a more balanced retail landscape. With a strategic approach to development, the city could enhance its revenue base while preserving the character that makes it so attractive in the first place, all while keeping the tax revenue at home.
Recent Comments