The city of Lawrence has upheld its end of the tax abatement deals reached with a number of local businesses. Why shouldn’t the tax abatement recipients be expected to do the same?

And if they can’t deliver on their promises, why should the city not cancel their abatements?

This topic was discussed Thursday by the city’s Public Incentives Review Committee which was reviewing data from all 12 companies that have property tax abatements in effect. A number of the companies — although committee members wouldn’t say how many — had failed to create as many jobs as they had projected when they applied for their tax abatements.

Some members of the committee were distressed by the companies that had fallen short, but others were inclined to cut the companies some slack. Mayor Boog Highberger said he didn’t see any evidence of “bad faith,” and added, “We don’t want to punish people for downturns in the business cycle that they aren’t responsible for.”

Perhaps. Business trends are difficult to predict, let alone guarantee. But if company officials applying for a tax abatement know that there will be no consequences if they can’t meet their employment projections, would they inflate those projections to increase their chances of receiving an abatement? It’s easy enough to find some excuse later for not meeting their goal. If the city has no recourse, why not?

Some other committee members weren’t as willing as the mayor to let companies off the hook, but neither did they think it would be productive to try to hold accountable firms that already are out of compliance with their tax abatement agreements. Their focus was to try to prevent the situation from being repeated.

The current tax abatement policy doesn’t seem to give the city much clout with firms that fail to meet their end of the bargain. If a company doesn’t meet employment projections or even if a firm closes its doors, it’s difficult for the city to recoup the tax revenue it already has lost.

What if the situation were turned around? What if the companies had to earn their tax abatements before receiving them? Instead of just forgoing tax payments, what if companies paid an amount equal to their abated taxes into an escrow fund where they would be held until the terms of the abatement agreement were met? Or perhaps taxes could be abated in proportion to how the company is meeting its goals. If the company is at 50 percent of its employment projection, it would receive 50 percent of its tax abatement. In either case, the status of abatements could be reviewed on an annual basis to see how companies were measuring up.

Tax abatements are a common practice that need to be a part of the city’s economic development tool box, but granting tax abatements without any assurance of what the city and its taxpayers — who must make up for the lost tax revenue — will receive in return just isn’t good business. The city has upheld its end of the abatement deal and should have a way to make sure the businesses who receive those abatements do the same.