|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Burlington’s ‘Empowerment Fund’ will favor minority-owned businesses for left-over COVID-19 funds
By Michael Bielawski
Grant funds originally intended to compensate for COVID-19-related hardships will be distributed via Burlington’s Office of Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (REIB) and prioritizing the development of small businesses owned by or working with minorities.
“Launched to uplift BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color) residents, small businesses, non-profits, and community-based organizations in Burlington, the program aims to stimulate innovation, promote economic growth, and foster positive change within the community,” reads a City release on Dec. 17.
The “Empowerment Grant Program” is the source. The City’s website says the program is “dedicated to promoting equity, access and empowerment for Black and Brown communities in Burlington by putting resources directly into the hands of BIPOC people and people who serve these populations.”
The funds are remnants of the federal “American Rescue Plan Act” intended to help navigate the shutdowns of COVID-19.
European/Americans need not apply?
On the application for the funds, it says “Applicants must fall into one of these categories” and it lists “BIPOC identified residents”, “small business owners”, or “organizations or individuals currently engaged in work that predominantly supports Black and Brown people in Burlington.”
A statement from REIB says, “We are thrilled to witness such enthusiasm and commitment from the Burlington community. The diverse range of applications reflects the creativity and resilience of our local organizations and businesses.”
Federal money
In a city document on how to apply for the grants it also states who pays for them.
“The Empowerment Grant Program is funded through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds provided to the City of Burlington through the Corona Virus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF),” it states.
It continues, “Grants will be awarded up to $10,000, and applicants must use these funds for work within the City of Burlington to address public health and economic impacts on households, populations, or classes (i.e., groups) that experienced or continue to experience pandemic impacts.”
Ethics and legality?
The use of municipal funds for political activism is generally prohibited by law. That Burlington created the activist group it is working with puts The Queen City in a unique scenario.
The ACLU states, “While donations are generally unlawful, there are exceptions for grassroots activism and policy change at the local level.”
Western City, a publication for elected officials in California, suggests there should be a separation between municipal efforts and activism.
“While local agencies have the authority to directly lobby state and federal officials, the law does not allow public agencies to use public funds for grassroots lobbying. Spending public funds on grassroots lobbying is banned under the same theory that prohibits the use of public funds to influence voters in an election,” it states.
A study titled “Understanding Governmental Activism” by the University of Amsterdam in 2017 noted a developing trend of municipal governments supporting NGOs (non-government organizations) and SMOs (social movement organizations).
“A striking feature of these cases is the role of politicians, civil servants and governmental organizations in organizing protest and resistance against policies proposed by other levels or branches of government,” the study states.
In Burlington’s case, the SMO (the Office of Racial Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging) is a municipal creation. The study notes by 2017, governments were working with these groups in some cases to organize protests.
“We would actually expect them to alter or redress policies through political parties, alumni networks, lobby activities or negotiations to which they have ample access, but surely not to stage protest and collaborate with SMOs or NGOs,” it states.
A “more equitable” Burlington?
The city’s release also states, “The Empowerment Grant Program underscores REIB’s commitment to addressing systemic inequities and empowering marginalized voices. The funding will be allocated to projects and programs that demonstrate potential for impactful outcomes, fostering a more equitable and thriving Burlington.”
The author is a writer for the Vermont Daily Chronicle
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Burlington, Race and Division
How about sending all of that money to the towns that had to borrow money to fix all the storm damage so they can pay off the loans.
Funding the insanity with other people’s money. This way it ensures continuity of the spiral down for Burlington.
And they accuse others of racism?
How bout the government not allocate money nor make policy based on the color of people’s skin?
Headline fixed:
“Unspent Covid $$ to fund minority-owned skin-color in Burlington” 👍🏾
As Richard plainly states, the money should of course be returned to the taxpayers. After all, it’s our money. Simple fairness. Simple. Common. Sense!
Are we understanding yet that ALL of this is simply a sophisticated money laundering scheme? Where, in the end, the same people end up with the bag of cash each and every time? To quote a country song, “Why’s the rich man busy dancing while the poor man pays the band”?
Do we now see why they’re so opposed to President Trump? To Elon Musk? To Vivek Ramaswamy? To Kash Patel? To DOGE itself?
For decades this has been the politicians’ private party, and WE ain’t invited!
Like George Carlin said, “it’s a big club, and you ain’t in it”.
So let me understand this, you’re taking non-spent government funding for ” COVID ”
money, and giving it to support minority-owned businesses ??
I hope our elected DC official Becca Balint, does her job and steps in and stops this maneuver of federally funded tax dollars being diverted from it’s intended purpose.
But then again, the cesspool known as Burlington make it own laws, and look at the condition of the city, under there control ………………….. Yeah !!
Becca Balint? Does her job and steps in? Call me when hell freezes over.
Burlington has been crying about the homeless among other things. Why wouldn’t they use that money for that? At least it would help real people in need.
On the other hand why wouldn’t the DC criminals call that money back to pay down the debt? Will people ever realize that “free money” is not free?
This is racism plain and simple. “Favor minority” business owners. I would like to see money like that put away for storm damage as it WILL happen again.
Discriminate much?
To the race baiters, the civil rights violators, and social justice warriors. Your racket is illegal and if you keep doubling down on it – chances are many of you will be charged and sent to prison – federal charges, aka RICO
“Racketeering is a type of organized crime in which the perpetrators set up a coercive, fraudulent, extortionary, or otherwise illegal coordinated scheme or operation (a “racket”) to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit. Specifically, a racket was defined by this coinage as being a service that calls forth its own demand, and would not have been needed otherwise. Narrowly, it means coercive or fraudulent business practices; broadly, it can mean any criminal scheme or operation with ongoing or reoccurring profit, as defined in the 1970 U.S. RICO Act, which aimed to curtail the power of the Mafia and other organized crime.”
“Originally and often still specifically, racketeering may refer to a criminal act in which the perpetrators offer a service that will not be put into effect, offer a service to solve a nonexistent problem, or offer a service that solves a problem that would not exist without the racket. However, racketeers may also sometimes offer an ostensibly effectual service outside of the law to solve an actual existing problem. The traditional and historically most common example of a racket is the “protection racket”, in which racketeers offer to protect a business from robbery or vandalism; however, the racketeers will themselves coerce or threaten the business into accepting this service, often with the threat (implicit or otherwise) that failure to acquire the offered services will lead to the racketeers themselves contributing to the existing problem. In many cases, the potential problem may be caused by the same party that offers to solve it, but that fact may be concealed, with the intent to engender continual patronage. The protection racket is thus often a method of extortion, at least in practice.”
Blatant violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Somebody please sue. This must stop.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex, as well as, race in hiring, promoting, and firing. The Act prohibited discrimination in public accommodations and federally funded programs.
Anti-racism is racism.