I really appreciate this defense of TIF. Minneapolis has done an excellent job right-sizing regulations to support unsubsidized market development. And it works great, in certain desirable neighborhoods, but there are broad parts of the city that still aren't seeing much new investment.

My only concern about the framing is the idea that market will or must catch up as a result of the initial TIF investment. I think there are areas of the city that will not transform in the same way that the North Loop did. And that's OK! Even good in some aspects -- because it likely means market rents are lower (hence the development not being able to fully support itself).

But even without the potential for transformation to fully self-supporting development, use of TIF can still increase the tax base and provide more housing, place for business, etc.

One other comment, from a regional perspective: TIF is often used to subsidize a project whose inefficiency is created, unnecessarily, by the local government. I am not concerned about this in Minneapolis. But in many other metro cities, you'll see things like minimum 2 parking spaces per unit, or large setbacks required on expensive land that nothing can be built on. Naturally, it is much harder to create a development that supports itself with this manufactured inefficiency. A combination of good land use rules and subsidy gets the biggest bang for (public and private) buck.