Homeland Security grants should go to big cities

Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like TimesLedger on Facebook.

Driving over the Brooklyn Bridge or through the Holland Tunnel, you can only tip your hat to the brave men and women of the NYPD standing guard. Day in and day out, they are there on watch, protecting our city. Sadly, the way we give these officers the tools they need to protect us deserves more ire than respect.

The way we allocate federal homeland security resources sometimes looks like its goal is to make every city feel like a risk rather than help protect the cities that are risks.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security originally designated seven high-threat urban areas to receive grants. Then they increased the number of high-threat areas to over 30 cities and regions. And today, 60 metropolitan areas receive funding. What is more, nothing is stopping DHS from expanding this number to 75 or even 100 metropolitan areas.

This lack of focus leads to a series of problems, the first of which is waste. A search by my staff found the following examples of boondoggles:

• $16 million in 2008, and $63 million since 2004, to teach truck drivers on how to report suspicious activity

• $48,600 for security cameras to watch a water tower in rural Arizona.

• $3,000 for a "terrorism prevention" printer in North Dakota.

Every dollar spent in a low-risk area is a dollar not used in Flushing. With real threats out there, we simply cannot waste money watching random targets across the country.

We can do a better job identifying targets and assigning resources. Here is how:

• Cap the number of high-threat cities. Currently, 60 cities can receive funding from high-threat grants. That is too high. My bill would cap that number at 15. Mid-size cities could still receive funding, but would not compete with larger cities facing different threats.

• Provide grants directly to cities, not states. Under current law, funding passed through states before cities, and in many cases, states can keep 20 percent of the funding. This bill would make sure resources go exactly where they are needed.

• Create "credible threat" funding standards. History has taught us that terrorists tend to target areas with critical infrastructure, commuters and tourists, rather than rural areas. Instead of funding remote projects, we should use these primary factors in determining funding allocations.

Nothing in my legislation limits the ability of rural or suburban areas to get the funds. But this bill does say one thing: We have to stop adding more and more cities when it is clear that the largest cities are at the greatest risk.

It is time we did more than just tip our hat at the men and women protecting us. It is time we stop sending money out to protect water towers from phantom threats and give law enforcement under credible threats the tools that they need to do their jobs.

U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner

(D-Forest Hills)

Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like TimesLedger on Facebook.

Reader Feedback

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

CNG: Community Newspaper Group