Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Security failure

New York and Washington, obvious terror targets, have their antiterror grants cut as more money flows to cities less likely to be attacked.

Nothing against Omaha or Louisville, but they're not New York or Washington - or any of a dozen bigger cities that common sense tells us are more likely terrorist targets. So why is the Department of Homeland Security, which announced its antiterror grants Wednesday, directing so much of a dwindling pot of money to second-tier security risks? Secretary Michael Chertoff promised to put politics aside and direct the money to places where terrorists are more likely to strike, but he didn't get the job done.

New York and the nation's capital, the two 9/11 targets that remain an obvious attraction for terrorists, were among the biggest losers this year. New York received $124-million, down from $207-million last year, while Washington netted $46.5-million, down from $77-million. More money flowed to states such as Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri and North Carolina. Smaller and mid-sized cities, such as Charlotte, Jacksonville, Milwaukee and St. Louis, all saw increases.

Homeland security officials said the awards reflect budget cuts and a more thoughtful allocation process. The $757-million awarded nationwide was $100-million less than last year and part of a broader, $1.7-billion package of preparedness grants. Officials said a new screening process rewarded communities that took a regional approach and put financial controls in place. That is the right model. As we have learned from 9/11 and from hurricanes, disasters know no boundaries. The Tampa Bay area, which received $8.8-million, some $1.1-million more than last year, is using the money to enable law enforcement agencies in Pinellas and Hillsborough counties to share information. That is an appropriate use for major metropolitan coastal areas connected by bridges.

But the department opened up the door with guidelines this year that expanded the scope of the grants to prepare for "catastrophic events" such as hurricanes or a flu pandemic. That standard is loose enough to justify nearly any emergency management project, many of which should be funded by the local or state government, not Homeland Security. Terrorism can strike anywhere, but some potential targets are more obvious than others. While Homeland Security made some progress in systematically handing out the money, it makes no sense to cut Washington and New York while sending more to St. Louis.

[Last modified June 3, 2006, 06:28:35]