Posted on 05/17/2020 1:03:41 PM PDT by Libloather
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Saturday called for Veritas, one of San Francisco’s biggest landlords, to return a $3.6 million Paycheck Protection Program loan that was intended to help small businesses cover expenses and retain workers during the coronavirus pandemic.
“PPP loans should be directed first and foremost to the small businesses with the greatest need, particularly minority, women and veteran-owned businesses that are struggling,” Pelosi said in a statement. “Larger companies like Veritas, one of San Francisco’s largest corporate real estate management firms, which has billions in assets and access to liquidity through other sources, were not the intended beneficiaries of PPP loans.”
Veritas Investments, which manages more than 250 San Francisco properties and has a $3 billion real estate portfolio, issued a statement on Sunday that said it plans to repay the loan within the two years allotted by the federal government.
“We are also a business that needed the loan for its intended purpose, to meet our payroll and employ the people responsible for maintaining the buildings that house more than 8,000 San Franciscans,” Veritas said in the statement. “We understand that some recipients of the loan are applying to make it a grant, however that is not our intention. We will not keep it.”
(Excerpt) Read more at sfchronicle.com ...
Cut her husband in as a silent partner more like it.
That’s what they get for not contributing to her war chest.
Meanwhile, the stupid twat wants to bailout rat-trap cities to the tune of billions of dollars for inept management.
SF landlord Veritas responds to Pelosi’s demand to return $3.6 million small business loan (take a hike)
________________
boy they didnt contribute enough to HER campaign.
Here’s what I don’t understand.
This company qualified for the benefits based on the criteria set forth in the Bill of at Nancy Pelosi and her people wrote.
How can she then turn around and say that a company such as this are not the intended recipients of the funds?
If a company meets the specific criteria set forth in the legislation then they are entitled to apply for and receive funding.
Nancy has a lot to answer for, in particular, why did she sign off on legislation which allowed a larger company to receive funding? What does it say about her legislative Acumen that she and her people apparently left a large loophole in the legislation that she voted for? If she is so frustrated that this could happen why didn’t she vote against the legislation then?
How about Piglousy return all the money she made on insider trading?
Pelosi is implicitly admitting that, once again, she did a terrible job of drafting a law that our children and grandchildren will spend their lives paying for.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.