The Butt For Test

Turns out that the Department of Community Development solicited feedback from Ehlers & Associates, self-proclaimed "leaders in public finance," on the EAA -TIF proposal. In a June 20, 2009 (sic) "Dear Jackson" memo, Michael Harrigan of Ehlers writes:

"The statutorily required 'but for' test we believe would be met here, not because NO development would occur but because the level, type and QUALITY of development would not occur but for the provision of this assistance."

It gets better. Jackson Kinney's memo to Acting CM John Fitzpatrick says this: "It should be noted that EAA has agreed to cover the cost of Ehlers' services to the City."

I suspect that EAA agreed to cover the Ehlers' cost because of Mr. Harrigan's profound interpretation of the "but for" test. In fact, I would argue that Mr. Harrigan has actually created a new test, the "butt for" test. The butt for test goes something like this: "but for the lack of toilets to park butts if the TIF is rejected, would the development take place?" Clearly Mr. Harrigan agrees that the development would take place, but a place to park butts would greatly enhance the QUALITY of the development.

Under the "butt for" test, I can imagine that we will be seeing a great increase in requests for TIF assistance. "Sure we can build that training facility, but it won't be as nice without a toilet." "Our development group realizes that restaurants legally have to have bathrooms, but we will build much NICER bathrooms with TIF assistance."

As you can see, the "butt for" test really kicks ass--especially the taxpayers'.