Recently, there was an article published by the Times Observer, “RDA Approves Loan for City Business.” On Facebook, this resulted in a spirited flood of comments, mostly from people recognizing that a 3% loan for a high-failure restaurant over 15 years is a negative investment from the city. The Fed funds rate is 3.75% and bank loans are probably in the 6% range. Assuming the business survives 15 years; most restaurants fail before year seven.

In the comments, many people had mentioned this was “taxpayer money” and that the city has “too many pizza places” and it wasn’t a good investment. Many also noted that NY Style was supposed to open years ago and it was the responsibility of the owners to manage their business plan properly and not the taxpayers.

One of the RDA committee members, Michael Boyd, found it odd to continuously argue that such a fact (that this is taxpayer money) was actually not a fact. Worse, he also found it appropriate to lodge various sarcastic comments repetitively along with laughing emojis at peoples’ criticisms of this decision by the RDA.

My criticism was lodged in the fact that 3% loans of taxpayer money are ridiculous and are a handout. That money can literally be put into a high-yield savings account and it would earn 0.75% interest, at least (one of mine earns 3.83%). In addition, there is a growing chance the Fed will increase their rate to 4%, given the 10-year is now around 4.5%. I recognize that under no circumstances should a private business get public money because it literally leads to corruption, fraud, waste, graft, and all sorts of other rotten avenues.

That criticism was validated by a comment made by someone who claimed to be the owner in the posts. She was asked by another commentator why she wasn’t able to get a private bank loan.

Her response was: “Who said I couldn’t get one? (laughing emoji). I just went for the lowest interest rate I could find. Not my fault other people don’t ask the city what available funding there is.” This comment was “liked” by none other than an RDA committee member, Mr. Boyd.

So this question goes out to Mr. Boyd: Were you and the RDA aware that the business not only has the resources to open the business on their own, but is happy to gloat about using the RDA as a mechanism for getting a low-interest, real-terms taxpayer handout? You must have done your due diligence. Misuse of funds has a definition: “The unauthorized, intentional, or unlawful diversion of money or assets for purposes other than intended, such as personal gain.” So now the question is, did the RDA and Mr. Boyd know that the business did not need this loan (as communicated directly from the owner), or did the owner intentionally disguise their ability to get a private loan?

Michael Hultin is a Warren resident.