SF landlord Veritas responds to Pelosi's demand to return $3.6 million small business loan

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

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.”

Read more: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/SF-landlord-Veritas-responds-to-Pelosi-s-demand-15276352.php

[TeamPooka]

1. To everyone at Veritas: Karma knows your home address.

[grantcart]

2. They said that they intend to repay the loan and not accept it as a grant

I don't have a problem with that.

About 40% of renters are not paying rent and if this keeps their employees on the payroll then it achieved the intended purpose.

[matt819]

3. The more important question

Do we believe that? Two years down the road, is anyone going to follow up?

[Igel]

5. That's the text of the law.

You can use the money for two things:

1. On-going business expenses. In which case it's a loan to be repaid.
2. For continuing to pay employees, in which case you have to document what their pay pre-COVID was and that the money actually went to the employees. Otherwise the money falls under (1).

There is no third option.

Saying they're going to repay the money isn't a virtue above what's required; it's merely compliance with the law. The law is what, all of 8 weeks old? It's already necessary for politicians to use political pressure to compel an ad hoc rewrite?

[NBachers]

4. For what it's worth, I deal with a lot of Veritas maintenance workers at the store where I work.

Would they still be working without the loan? I don't know. Would Veritas find funding through other channels, if this loan was not available to them?

It will be interesting to follow this and see if the loan is paid back.