GOP bill would block state disaster aid after riots
Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
Republicans in the Minnesota Senate argue that state disaster aid should not be used for riot damage, and they want that point specified in law.
The Senate judiciary and public safety committee heard legislation Monday that would limit the definition of state-declared disasters to tornadoes, floods and other natural occurrences. The bill would add language to exclude a catastrophe caused by civil unrest, such as the events that took place in Minneapolis last summer after the killing of George Floyd.
Sen. Julie Rosen, R-Vernon Center, said the disaster assistance was never intended for civil unrest.
“I’ve heard over and over again from greater Minnesota, from my constituents, ‘please do not pay for this out of our taxpayer dollars,’” Rosen said.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria, told the committee that he has heard a similar message in his district.
“Constituents don’t think that rural counties should be paying for what happened,” Ingebrigtsen said.
The panel advanced the bill to the Senate floor on a divided-voice vote.
Sen. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, opposed the measure, which he described as unfair.
“This feels an awful lot like blaming the victim here,” Latz said. “If we’re going to try to act as a state as a whole, then we should act as a state as a whole.”
The Senate bill is also retroactive to Jan. 1, 2020, which would make disaster claims from last year’s events ineligible.
In Minneapolis, city officials are currently seeking reimbursement for $13.1 million in damage to public buildings and equipment, according to city 0Emergency Management Director Barret Lane.
Latz said he was particularly frustrated with the retroactivity provision.
“To change the rules going backwards is unbecoming I think of the Legislature, and it’s not fair to anyone participating in the process,” he said.