Thanks. I think the previous paragraph from the story places in it a bit better context.

.. the proposal clearly met the city's "but-for" test, which seeks to ensure that a project would be impossible without incentives, but it didn't meet the public benefits test, which looks at issues like job creation or retention.

Each TIF request is evaluated according to two criteria by the administration before it is forwarded with our recommendation to KCDC for their process, and then on to City Council and County Commission.

Those criteria are the "but for" test, to provide assurance that the project could not move forward without the TIF, and the "public benefit" test which is self-explanatory. The COK gets assistance from third party bankers familiar with the construction industry to examine the project, its costs, and other elements of the pro-forma. The public benefits test is clearly a policy/political call. There are a number of considerations that go into that calculus, including putting an historic building to productive use (Brownlow School, Crimson Building, serving as a catalyst project in a area on the cusp of redevelopment, such as was the case with 912 N. Central, and pursuit of other policy objectives.

PS.. I appreciate the humor in "Breaking News" thread title. However many contact our office in regard to a potential TIF without ultimately receiving a positive recommendation, for failure to meet either, or both of these criteria. The criteria, forms, and list of TIFs approved is on our dept web site at http://www.cityofknoxville.org/policy/default.asp

I can't quote that much lest I run afoul of fair use! So I went with the bottom line. (Which probably makes it not fair use. Oh well.)

From the article

"When you have big trucks coming in, hauling inventory in and out, you can't have a lot of slope," he said. "So that site being as straight up and down as it is … it's hard to get it flat. It was expensive to get it flat, and I think in the long run the city might have a better use for it than that."

Sounds like the site just wasn't appropriate for the land use. So the city is asked to pay for site improvements just because someone got a good deal on a challenging lot? If the property really is straight up and down it's not appropriate for any use, more likely it's suitable for a 2 level office park (think big basement ranch), not a manufacturing/distribution facility.

____________________________________
"Whoever corrects a mocker invites insult; whoever rebukes a wicked man incurs abuse."