The Danbury News-Times reports that the Port of New Haven is extremely vulnerable due to an apparent lack of interest from Washington:
New Haven, which the Department of Homeland Security rated as a "high-risk city" in 2003, received none of the $49 million in Homeland Security grants targeted for port security last year.
...
...New Haven is arguably one of the most at-risk ports in New England. Home to a large commercial cargo facility as well as the second-largest oil terminal in the Northeast, experts say it could be a terrorist target. (Reid)
That's odd. Are there comperable decreases in other, similar port cities?
The city of Bridgeport received $600,000 in federal grant money for port security, while the Bridgeport Port Authority, a separate entity, got $3 million.
...
New London received $150,000 from the federal grant. The city has yet to spend its grant money, said a spokeswoman for Police Chief Bruce Rhinehart. (Reid)
It's worth noting that the Coast Guard and the naval base provide some extra security for New London. So what's going on here?
Bridgeport and New London have something else in common. Both have Republican representation in Congress. U.S. Rep. Christopher P. Shays, R-4th Dist., respresents Bridgeport while Rep Bob Simmons, R-2nd Dist., represents New London.
New Haven has a Democratic representative, Rosa DeLauro, D-3rd Dist. "If homeland security is our country's top priority — as the Bush administration continues to tell us— then why is New Haven no longer a high-risk city and why is it losing $10 million in funding?" DeLauro said.
She said changes in grant eligibility were "made without prior warning and there are many questions that need to be answered."
...
DeLauro stopped short of accusing the Bush administration of playing politics. However, according to the list of grant recipients from the Department of Homeland Security, nearly 70 percent of port funding went to states with Republican governors or to districts with Republican members of Congress. (Reid)
Outrageous, although those statistics may very well be misleading (California and New York, for example, probably get a lot of port funding--both have Republican governors, as do we). Where are our senators on this? Lieberman supposedly lives in New Haven, shouldn't he be concerned with or at least aware of security problems at the port? There is no reason why New Haven shouldn't have the same level of security as Bridgeport.
Source: Reid, Chipp. "Politics may aid security funding". The News-Times 4 April 2005.
4 comments:
Indeed not. In fact, major port cities like New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Miami, San Fransisco, Baltimore, Houston and others share with New Haven the distinction of being in states with GOP governors. These cities mostly have Democratic representatives in Congress, I believe.
The red flag here seems to be the fact that Bridgeport is getting lots of money while New Haven isn't. There are two possible reasons for this:
1. Politics in Washington
2. Incompentence in New Haven's city government
It's probably a combination of the two. Could be an issue for DeStefano next year.
Shonu,
Thanks for the additional information. This is a tricky and complicated subject. It's a shame that New Haven seems to be on the losing end right now.
I don't know that Gov. Rell has that much pull in Washington. She avoided the governors' meeting this year and hasn't really spoken with President Bush more than once or twice. But that could be an issue for you to raise next year, too.
Are you Shonu Gandhi?
I recognized your name from the DeStefano blog (nice work, btw--the other candidates don't have the web presence you do). Agreed on Rell. I was disappointed that she didn't attend, but health concerns may have been a part of that.
Stomv,
Could be. President Bush and the D.C. Republicans certainly aren't popular here, as you say. I recall that she also barely showed her face at the GOP convention last year, despite the fact that Hartford was one of the closest state capitals to NYC (I think only Trenton is closer).
Still, the governors' meeting was a chance, as Shonu says, to lobby for Connecticut interests and conference with other governors. Her actions (support for civil unions, possibly raising taxes) have marked her as a different kind of Republican more than a snub of D.C. would.
Post a Comment