Let me help out if I can. You can divide "tax breaks" that a developer receives into different categories.

Think of the problem as two questions in a grid, with four possible results. Question 1: are the improvements public or private? Question 2: are the funds used currently taxes being paid, or are they future taxes [[called an "increment", it's the "I" in TIF)?

Let's take the simple one first: public improvements funded by an increment. Let's say we need to widen a road or put new traffic lights in. Cities generally don't want to pay for that. In a unsexy residential development in the suburbs, the city will condition its approval upon the developer paying those costs. If the project is attractive enough, the city might want to pay for those improvements. If the city does, but doesn't have the money, they may capture some tax revenues from the new development to pay for the improvements. This is probably the least objectionable of the four.

If the improvements are public, but the development generates no new taxes [[or no new taxes are used), that's more like normal decision-making that municipalities make [[i.e. where do cities spend their taxpayers' money?)

If the improvements are private, that's where it gets tricky. This is done all over the country. The largest example is the Gigafactory in Nevada--states were throwing money at Telsa. If you want an example for a stadium, try the new Comiskey Park [[now "Guaranteed Rate Stadium--with its logo of an arrow pointing down--hilarious). The park is privately owned and funded almost entirely by public funds, some through tax increment and some through existing taxes. A deal where public taxes [[without an increment) are used solely for the construction of a private property has dubious constitutionality.

The LCA is financed almost 50-50. $450MM total cost, $250MM in DDA bonds [[increment unknown), $200MM from Mr. I. Now, how much of the construction is public [[roads, streetscape, etc.), I don't know.

I'm in the camp that I don't know why a "community benefits" agreement would be needed. Is the City Council that out of touch with its citizenry that it can't figure out what the voters really want? How you define "community" in this case? Is it downtown only? Why would that be; residents of the whole city pay taxes? A well-run city doesn't need it.