When I read the article last week about how the owner of Kitson had decided to open stores around the world, my first impression was, “Of course. It’s about time.”

After all, for such a small operation, Kitson has a huge name. Starlets and wannabe celebrities flock to the flagship store on Robertson Boulevard with paparazzi waiting outside. Young shoppers all over the world have seen the name in magazines and websites, and are probably eager to see what a local Kitson has in store for them.

A Kitson expansion is the kind of obvious potential that you don’t see every day. Or even every year.

The article – by Alexa Hyland and headlined “Refashioning” in the May 23 issue of the Business Journal – went on to say that executives plan to open 200 stores in major markets worldwide.

Wait a minute. Two hundred stores?

Maybe it’s just me, but that number seems high. Quite high. Like maybe three or four times too high.

Think about it. What does Kitson sell, really? Sure it sells trendy apparel. That’s where it makes money. But lots of stores sell that. Kitson is really selling something special and rare. It’s selling exclusivity. Hollywood glamour. It offers shoppers the chance to see some starlet – or at least a TMZ cameraman waiting to see some starlet.

The more shops that Kitson opens in more far-flung locations, the more it dilutes that magic. Celebrities, if only local ones, may be drawn to Kitson shops in other cities – but only so long as the shops are rare. I could see two or three shops each in New York, Paris and Tokyo. I could see a shop or two in Chicago; Singapore; and Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Add up all the possible sites, it totals dozens, perhaps 60 or 70 shops worldwide.

But if Kitson opens 200 stores, that means it’s ganging up shops in top cities and going into secondary markets. I mean, how much exclusivity will Kitson have if its opens its third shop in Cleveland? How many starlets would Kitson expect to see in a suburban mall in Anytown, USA?

The store’s founder, Fraser Kitson Ross, is a brilliant marketer and he has assembled some smart, experienced executives. Maybe they’ll succeed. Still, it will be a true challenge for them to pull off the tricky feat of making Kitson available to the masses without killing its exclusivity.

• • •

Here’s something I’m wondering about: Why aren’t state lawmakers trying to disincorporate the City of Industry?

I mean, many political types are arguing hard to disband Vernon. It’s a company town, they claim, masquerading as a city. There are only a few residents, and they are beholden to city officials, who have entrenched themselves in power as much as they’ve enriched themselves financially, or so the story goes.

But state lawmakers could make much the same case against the nearby City of Industry. It, too, is a company town with a few residents and an entrenched power structure. And some of those elected types have gotten big money from deals that appear cozy.

But when Assembly Speaker John Perez wrote his disincorporation bill, he crafted it to target cities with fewer than 150 residents. That affects only one city: Vernon. Industry, which only has 50-some houses but more than 150 residents, was off the hook.

So why not Industry?

I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that billionaire Ed Roski Jr. is a power broker in Industry – as well as a big political donor in Sacramento.

I really don’t know. Just wondering.

Charles Crumpley is editor of the Business Journal. He can be reached at [email protected].