The timing was off for the project at Ninth and New Hampshire, but Lawrence city commissioners are right to pursue the addition of certain conditions to the city’s tax incentive packages.

Before approving $5 million in incentives for the project at the northeast corner of the intersection Tuesday, commissioners removed a list of six circumstances under which the city could “revoke, modify or suspend” the agreement. The developer had told commissioners that having the conditions added so late in the game could jeopardize financing for the project.

The proposed conditions also didn’t seem entirely appropriate for an apartment and office building. The conditions would have allowed the city to revisit the incentives for six reasons: allowing underage alcohol consumption, failure to control disorderly conduct, maintaining a public nuisance, failure to remove or report illegal drug use, failure to report assaults or other violent crimes and permitting other offenses that would adversely impact the downtown area.

It seems unreasonable to expect the owners to be responsible for such actions that occur in private apartments, and although it’s possible that the usage would change before the end of the incentives, the office space currently planned for the building would be unlikely to generate such concerns.

The restrictions really only make sense in light of concerns the city has raised about another project — by a different development group — that received tax incentives: The Oread Hotel, where a nightclub was the subject of a state investigation for multiple alcohol violations. The developers of the Ninth and New Hampshire project could be forgiven for thinking they were being punished for someone else’s transgression.

That being said, it’s reasonable for the city to consider adding conditions to prevent future problems like those that occurred at The Oread. To that end they have asked the city’s Public Incentives Review Committee to look at what kind of language could be added to future tax incentive agreements to protect the city’s interests.

The language that was removed from Tuesday’s agreement was, as an attorney for the developers said, “using a chainsaw to cut off a sapling.” The provisions could use some refinement, but the idea is sound. When the city gives up tax dollars in support of new development, they should expect that project to contribute to, not detract from, the community.