MIA: mother wit
The Braymiller loan is more than just a financial decision—it is a test of government officials commitment to accountability and fiscal discipline.
Recently, the Acting Mayor of Buffalo agreed that the $561,000 loan given to Braymiller Market does not need to be repaid because the owner has "done his very best" to keep the business afloat. While I do not doubt the owner's efforts, this resolution is not in line with standard business practices.
Evans Bank which holds the mortgage on the building has not forgiven the loan owed to them. So, why should city officials treat taxpayers interest differently than banks treat their shareholders? After all, taxpayers are the shareholders for the business loan.
By forgiving this loan, city officials place emotional appeals above fiduciary responsibility. However, Braymiller has options that do not involve burdening taxpayers.
They can reorganize their debts under Chapter 11 or file for a discharge of debt through the courts, just as other businesses do.
When public funds are lent, that obligation extends not just to the borrower, but to every taxpayer whose hard-earned money made the loan possible.
The City of Buffalo’s finances are in dire need of resuscitation, yet city officials continue to bury us deeper in a fiscal hole by increasingly adding loads to our burdens.
City officials emotional rationale for loan forgiveness does not hold up in private sector finance, and it should not in public governance either.
If Buffalo is to climb out of its fiscal woes, it starts with managing public funds with the same fiduciary care that corporate boards exercise on behalf of their investors.
Taxpayers are investors in City of Buffalo. City officials have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the city.