It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The San Francisco area -- which includes Marin and San Mateo counties - - will receive $21.4 million, down from $26.3 million. The Oakland area, which covers the rest of Alameda County and Contra Costa County, was cut to $6. 2 million from $7.8 million. The San Jose area grant, which covers all of Santa Clara County, was slashed to $6.6 million from $9.9 million.
In contrast, a few big cities are getting sharp increases in funding for the current fiscal year, which began Oct. 1.
New York's grant under the Urban Area Security Initiative jumped to $208 million from $47 million -- 24.3 percent of the total $854.6 million distributed to 50 areas.
The grant for Washington, D.C., is rising 166 percent, to $78 million, while the Los Angeles area, home to the busiest container port in the country, will get $61 million, a 118 percent increase. Chicago, home to more bridges than any other U.S. city, is getting $45 million, up 33 percent.
Originally posted by Muaddib The funding for states does change, i don't know exactly how it goes, but my guess is depending on the chatter that the intelligence agencies get.
Originally posted by Muaddib
And about the United States being a police state... you have got to be kidding, this is "sensationalism" at it's worse. You want to blame the government for sensationalism, yet some people around here are doing worse, and giving a new meaning to "sensationalism".
Originally posted by SwitchbladeNGC
the infrastructure is already there now, which is what most of the money was going toward. With the current amoutn they are going to get they can still do everything they need to do to protect the city, if they use that money for what it is intended to be used for which is defending the city, not padding the poilticians pocketbooks.
Also, everyone seems to be missing the other reason that funding has dropped,
They are also taking into account how well municipalities have used past grants.
If politicians have been using the money for things other than defending the city, they shouldn't get the money and the government should give it to cities that do use it to protect the city.
It is like what goes on here in Tennessee all the time, We have to raise taxes for schools. Once the taxes get increased the first things that get more funding are the politicians pocketbooks and their own special projects, and schools get the scraps.
Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
Has NYC always 'spent up' in previous years?
Originally posted by Crakeur
NY has spent up, as you put it but DHS feels that it wasn't spent wisely. They were bothered by the overtime issue.
Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
There is simply no good explanation for diverting funding from the nation's #1 "terrorist target" to a broad dispersal among locales that are, for all practical purposes, non-targets. Unless, that explanation is indeed that the "terrorist threat" is not what we're being led to believe it is, and the money is being used to develop an environment we feared has been a long time coming.