wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Maybe DHS should allocate its funds proportionately according to the premium rates private insurance agencies charge for business or real property insurance related to the event of a terrorist attack. Sadly, I would trust the dilligence and accuracy of private, corporate actuaries in assessing risk more than that of DHS.

The likely targets are not where large SINGLE events take place such as Churchill Downs, or the Super Bowl, etc. Those will be protected targets at the time of the event, highly secured and watched. In the past, the attacks have been where tourists are likely to be on a routine basis. NYC is a very likely target because there are always tourists here.

As to comparisons for OHS dollars though, I do not think "per capita" is a good measure. If we are to harden international and hub airports, there is probably very little difference in the amount needed to do the job based on local population, or even location. It would likely cost nearly as much to protect Charlotte as it would to protect Newark per square foot. The criteria should be likelihood of attack or likelihood of being the origin of an attack. If the airport is likely to BE a target, then more money is needed to strengthen the physical site/infrastructure and the first-responders network. BUT if there is a likelihood that the airport may be a possible ORIGIN of attack (as was Logan and Newark), then the funds are needed in screening and ground security. One size cannot fit all in this. Here is a case of "equal" may no be "fair".

Your headline suggesting that New York's receiving 18% of Homeland Security Funds suggest only and 18% chance of a terrorist attack, is extremely misleading. An upfront investment in equipment lasts multiple years, but doesn't require equal investment each year thereafter. Just like a buying a new car: you don't have pay the full price of car every year to enjoy the benefits of transportation.

New York received significant investment in security immediately after 9/11; it's now receiving some of the benefit of that initial investment, but doesn't necessarily require the same level of funding.

Your simplistic headline undermines our political debate, because it misleads the public understanding of our government's investments. While you may laugh at Kansas City's concern about the risk to its rail yards, those railyards are undeniably a significant crossroads (and vulnerability) for nations economy, and in a war, a key objective is to disable a society's ability to function.

DON'T FORGET OKLAHOMA CITY! ! !

Kinda gives a new perspective, huh?

Dan

Mr. Homeland security, drive through the tunnels and get stuck in traffic in the tunnel for 1/2 then you'll know why we need all the money we can get.