SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: carranza2 who wrote (151141)12/15/2005 10:48:42 AM
From: Lane3  Read Replies (1) of 793958
 
>>I suppose it's impossible to cut an unnecesary step out of the process.<<

On the fly it is likely impossible. Laws are written, agency responsibilities assigned, regulations promulgated. There is likely not much that the bureaucrats can legally do about it. And they're probably so far behind the eight ball by now that they're spending all their energy on catching up rather than obviating the problem.

It sounds to me like there is good reason to exclude those qualified for loans from getting grants. This sequence probably wouldn't be an issue were the number of victims not so great that SBA has a backlog.

Maybe they could put the two agencies in adjacent quarters so the applicants don't have so far to go between steps. But I'd bet that the applications aren't being and cannot be processed locally so proximity may not matter. The FEMA folks could give the applicants unlikely to qualify for loans the grant paperwork on their first visit so at least they could have that ready to go when the time comes. And the SBA could perhaps set up an expedited process for those conspicuously not qualified although that would slow the process for those who are qualified.

Maybe they'll do something like that now that the issue has been forced onto the table.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext