The But-For Test Is the Failure: Topeka Should Retire It

Take one Topeka building as an example. A city water main broke, and deferred maintenance meant there was no way to shut it off. Water backed up inside and flooded the space, and the sheetrock was ruined. The owner has spent years paying for damage he didn't cause. If that owner ever wanted to set up a Community Improvement District (CID) to help rebuild, he would first have to pay a consultant to run a "but-for" test. That's a theoretical exercise to decide whether the project "needs" help and what his rate of return should be. That's the problem in one sentence. A property owner who has already absorbed the cost of the city's neglect would have to pay an outsider with no money at risk to judge what his own risk is worth. This isn't about one building or one owner. It's about a test that fails every time it meets the real world. It measures the wrong thing. The but-for test asks whether a project would happen "but for" public help, and it answers with assumptions on paper. It can't see floods, failed infrastructure, ruined interiors, years of lost use, or what it costs to rebuild after damage someone else caused. It puts the cost on the wrong people. Owners pay up front just to be allowed to ask. Every dollar spent on a consultant's opinion is a dollar not spent on roofs, drywall, and tenants. The consultant gets paid whether the project succeeds or fails. It slows down the very reinvestment Topeka says it wants. Older corridors and distressed buildings are exactly where reinvestment is hardest and matters most. A costly gatekeeping step makes small, local owners less likely to try at all. Only those who can afford the paperwork move forward. It's outdated. Tools like CIDs already come with public hearings, council approval, and limits set in law. Adding a paid rate-of-return opinion on top of that is redundant. It's bureaucracy, not accountability. There's a better standard. Judge projects on what they deliver and verify it: restored buildings, jobs, a stronger tax base, and blight removed. Make the owner prove results, not pay for a forecast. Topeka should retire the but-for test. The people with skin in the game have been through enough. Future owners shouldn't have to pay for a litmus test that was never built to understand them. Photos: construction staging along SW Topeka Blvd, another example of what Topeka property owners absorb. Henry McClure, mcre Media | (762) 291-2765 | https://mcremedia.blogspot.com/