The proliferation of charity and community bookshops is substantially the product of tax policy. Commercial property is taxed at ~50% of the nominal rental value, but charities are substantially or wholly exempt from this tax. Importantly, this tax is owed regardless of whether the property is occupied; for a commercial landlord, it is therefore preferable to lease a unit to a charity at a peppercorn rent if the unit is expected to remain vacant for some time. This has had a profound effect on the makeup of retail tenants, particularly in small towns with high vacancy rates, which some argue amounts to a harmful market distortion.
Yes, perhaps there's an argument that having charity shops is better for the area overall than having too many vacant shop fronts. But if that's the case, why not cut business rates for all, rather than for this arbitrary group?
can you elucidate on if this was un- or intended consequence, and "harmful market distortion"?
To be honest, I prefer charity shops to professional shops for 2nd hand books.
That said, I still visit professional shops rather more than I should (it depends on the shop.)
Of course charity shops are cheaper, that's part of the appeal, but I have more success in them because they are less discerning.
Over the years I've acquired a LOT of books, so now I tend to limit myself more. Mostly I now collect science fiction, with an emphasis on work pre 1970. These were made cheap, and are usually in "poor" condition now.
Professional shops won't shelve them, whereas charity shops will, so I have more success there.