My solution to the Publix/Panera situation would be to let Publix build, then once it’s open, allow Panera to open a store. It’s an out building, and the owner of the property can lease to whomever he/she wishes.
It is my understanding that a major retail outlet might agree to build a store on leased property if stores in direct competition are not allowed to also reside on the same property... i.e. a Publix Supermarket will be built as long as no other food supermarket will also be built.
I presume that if Panera Bread was just selling sandwiches that would not constitute a violation; however, if Panera is also selling bread and other bakery goods, that would constitute a violation.
Over the years I have noticed that it is rare to find direct competing businesses within the same shopping complex so I presume it is a common practice. Certainly the complex next door or across the street is ideal for a competitor! 🤷
Depending what the contract states, doing what you suggest could result in the developer losing the development via Publix suing. A shady developer might do it. Publix is too important to sacrifice it for a franchise.
The leasing money from Publix would be such that a Panera Bread on the outparcel would never make up for the loss if Publix went elsewhere. Plus a Publix as the anchor is a better ‘magnet’ for other companies to lease at the developer’s property. The foot traffic from a Publix alone would entice something like a PetSmart, Verizon or AT&T store, Chick-fil-A, local restaurants, GNC store, hair salon, etc...
Publix never builds their own because leasing gives them the flexibility to leave when traffic flow, customer traffic, area development, the local retail market change. They aren’t going to sink money into a fixed asset like building their own store.