The “but for” clause is back on the table. The Lawrence City Commission’s policy on granting tax abatements didn’t actually include the words “but for” before it was revised in 2001, but it did call for commissioners to determine whether there was a “reasonable expectation” that a tax abatement would be a deciding factor for a business seeking to relocate or expand in Lawrence. Would the business reject Lawrence “but for” a tax abatement?

As noted, that requirement was removed from the policy in 2001, but now, a number of commissioners say they may want some sort of “but for” guarantee back in the policy.

The purpose of such a clause, in theory, was to make sure city commissioners didn’t grant tax abatements unless they were absolutely necessary, but the problems with this rationale are obvious.

Why would any business owner applying for a tax abatement say he or she would be willing to do the project without it? Whether it is an existing Lawrence business or a new business seeking to locate here, it probably is being courted by other cities. A tax abatement is one piece of the puzzle as officials seek to make the best possible deal for their company. Of course, they will say that a tax abatement is essential to their project.

And, although city officials can look at certain data, they really are in no position to contest that claim. A member of the city’s Public Incentives Review Committee, which analyzes requests for tax abatements, contended last week that the city could do its own analysis of whether a company needed an abatement. Based on what? There is no way the city can have as much information as the company officials themselves. And city officials can’t possibly measure various intangible factors — such as quality of life or some executive’s personal attraction to the city — that sometimes tip the balance in a decision to expand or relocate a business.

Reinstating the “but for” clause also would throw down an unnecessary gauntlet for businesses. What if a business says it needs the abatement but the city analysis determines it doesn’t? The abatement request is rejected and the business more or less is categorized as a liar. Simply as a matter of pride, it’s unlikely such a business would consider Lawrence any further.

Bob Johnson, chairman of the Douglas County Commission and a member of the 2001 task force that recommended tax abatement policy changes, has the right idea. Rather than backing businesses into a corner, the city should concentrate on its own side of the tax abatement equation. “We should never offer it unless it’s good for our community,” Johnson said last week. “And if it’s good for our community, that’s all that matters.”

A business seeking to expand or relocate in Lawrence must decide whether to seek a tax abatement and, if it does, how to justify to city officials that its project is worthy of an abatement. Then it’s up to the city to decide whether the value this business brings to the community in terms of jobs, capital investment and other factors justifies a public investment in the form of a tax abatement.

Forcing businesses to take an arbitrary “but for” oath doesn’t add significant information to the tax abatement deliberations. If commissioners are trying to make sure the city’s tax abatement investments pay off, they would be better off creating some sort of staged abatement that provided companies more benefit as they achieved stated goals for business or employment growth.

A “but for” clause adds nothing to the city’s analysis of a tax abatement request but it could have a negative impact on businesses interested in locating or expanding in Lawrence. The policy is better off without it.