In terms of the credit, I think the 20% is solid. It's defensible. Why not go to 25%? Because someone will make the argument that the United States hasn't needed it to get the kind of activity they have. I would accept that argument.
Does it underestimate the positive economic impact to the fiscal framework? I would say that by definition this does, because when you are creating a vibrant, urban, downtown area, there are all kinds of other things that won't be taken into account, such as the broader area impact of economic activity, making a place a tourist attractor, changing the nature of a community to take properties that had no value and giving them value again—which also returns property taxes municipally—and the economic activity that goes on in those buildings that would otherwise have been blighted or demolished over years to follow. Those are other pieces that are a little harder to measure, a little more esoteric, but they're undoubtedly real.
I think you're probably right that the real impact is more.