The high risk premium commanded for TIF bonds combined with the potential for unintended and inequitable consequences certainly suggests that TIFs are not meant to be used as a broad sweeping tool. If some of the increment property tax base would have occurred independent of the TIF project - i.e. through natural population expansion or economic growth - or if the project relocates development that would have otherwise occurred in the jurisdiction, then TIF policy collides with a variety of incentive and equity problems. Simply put, TIF districts should pass the "but for" test - i.e. areas must show no recent or current growth and show no prospect for future growth "but for" the TIF. Although many states in the U.S. require projects to leap over "but for" hurdles before receiving approval, the bar is usually low and the tests are not uniformly or rigorously applied. Most states have resorted to a simple finding by the authorizing governmental body that development would not occur without the assistance and public funds supplied by the government.37 However, the "but for" test is only a necessary, but not sufficient condition. TIF districts should only be designated in areas believed capable of realizing a significant and sufficient increase in assessed property values. In addition, TIF districts should only be implemented where the project will generate a new income stream - large abandoned industrial sites can make a good candidate.