The Fillmore County Journal, the Rushford Tri-County Record, and the Winona Daily News all report that the Pawlenty administration's interpretation of the flood relief bill is at odds with what its local authors intended for small business recovery.
Issues develop in fund formula for businesses, according to the Rushford paper. What's the issue?:
The commissioner of the Department of Employment and Economic Development Dan McElroy told business people at the City of Rushford Village city hall Friday that the Minnesota Investment Fund, where the state placed $35 million will contract with the city as the recipient and issue loans. Some of it is "forgivable," usually 20 to 25 percent as determined by the city, and the rest may have deferred interest, he said.
Ron Zeigler of the Southeast Minnesota Development Corporation which some cities have designated as their loan applicant processor, said the loan is one-third forgivable, one-third paid back into the revolving loan fund of the community, and one-third returned to the state investment fund.
"We were told forgivable loans and grants," said Ted Roberton, one of seven who went to St. Paul last Tuesday to observe the legislative process.
That was the understanding of area legislators as well:
Told of this interpretation Saturday Rep. Ken Tschumper was flabbergasted. He was the chief author of the bill, but "I never heard anything about that-Pawlenty's people said 'trust us'. They said it would be flexible and they said it would be forgivable loans. Some of us are really angry how this is being carried out."
He's also heard about the governor's interpretation that the $16 million appropriated to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is being used to "backfill" he said, the amount the governor announced a day earlier as being taken from the agency for homeowner relief in the stricken area. "We believed we were getting $32 million for housing and they are saying it's $16 million. They aren't going to get away with that if I can help it," said Tschumper. . . .
There's more at the Tri-County Record. The Fillmore County Journal in Preston tells a similiar story in Aid package fine print raises many concerns:
. . .The bottom dropping out, that must be what Rushford residents and members of the business community felt when they met with Dan McElroy, Commissioner of the Department of Employment and Economic Development on 14-September and learned that grants and forgivable loans they were expecting would not be delivered as promised. . . .
. . .The apparent contradiction between DFL-lawmakers' promises and the restrictions or limitations announced by Dan McElroy, the head of DEED - a key appointment by a Republican Governor with a well-deserved reputation for fiscal conservatism - came as a poignant partisan snub to the Rushford business community. Its members have independently estimated direct business damages, that is lost buildings, inventories, equipment and clean-up costs, at $27.6-million. In Rushford alone, 58-businesses suffered significant flood damage. In addition, 272-fulltime and 191-parttime employees were idled by the disaster, and many remain out-of-work. . .
The Winona Daily News has more in Officials split on flood relief for businesses.
Oh, and the FEMA trailers (actually more like mobile homes than those supplied in warmer climates) have arrived: Trailers permitted on some home lots.
UPDATE: All the Star Tribune seems to be able to come up with is this short tale about federal relief: Flood relief moving quickly.
Thanks to netroots: Thanks to Mercury Rising, Across the Great Divide, Norwegianity, and Joe Bodell blogging at Huffington Post for linking to this article.
I was wondering when Smilin' Tim was going to screw the good people of Rushford. Looks like he just waited for the TV camera crews to leave before putting the knife into the city's back.
Then, this is to be expected from the guy who institutes regressive taxes on Minnesotans and calls them "fees".
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | September 22, 2007 at 11:10 PM