The Talk Radio News Service

The Talk Radio News Service is the only information news service dedicated to serving the talk radio community. TRNS maintains a Washington office that includes White House, Capitol Hill and Pentagon staffed bureaus, and a New York office with a United Nations staffed bureau.

← Additional Marines for Afghanistan tied to force levels in Iraq Stop-loss has proven necessary →

Congress criticizes Mississippi use of Katrina relief funds

May 8th, 2008 by Staff · No Comments

The House Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity of the Committee on Financial Services held a hearing to assess the implementation of Community Development Block Grant funds for post-Hurricane Katrina reconstruction among the states impacted along the Gulf Coast.

A main concern of Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Rep. Al Green (D-TX) was that Mississippi has allegedly used an unapproved portion of CDBG funds on construction of their main port as opposed to directly funding housing relief for low-income hurricane victims. It is unacceptable, Green said, to “put the port above the people” when there are so many victims still in need.

Jack Norris, Director of the Mississippi Governor’s Office of Recovery and Renewal, asked Congress to “streamline or waive” environmental regulations that he said have been the “number one impediment” to building affordable housing, which Waters said he was “exaggerating.” When criticized by Waters and Green for spending $600 million on port reconstruction as opposed to housing relief, he said that the port was essential to economic and job recovery and that Congress initially allocated the funds for holistic recovery. Norris said the state has spent over 70 percent of its $5.4 billion in funds directly on housing, with only $1.4 billion on “job recovery.” Green proceeded to ask representatives from other states, including Florida, Texas, and Louisiana, if they were spending CDBG funds on ports, and all replied they were not.

Derrick Johnson, President of the Mississippi State National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said that “discriminatory policies” towards hurricane victims are preventing a full recovery. He said that states should be required to track CDBG fund spending by zip code to determine how they are being allocated according to income and demographic.

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) said the public believes there was “intentionality” in how information about hurricane victims was gathered when considering relief appropriation and that since it was gathered online it targeted low-income people who did not have access to a computer. He also said relief was “badly skewed” towards the wealthy or better-off.

Witnesses Bill Johnson, Director of the Alabama Dept. of Economic and Community Affairs, and Deputy Executive Director of the Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs, mentioned faith-based organizations that have provided substantial relief for victims, with Johnson requesting Congressional funding to these groups so they can deploy more aid.

Digg This [?]

Tags: News/Commentary

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment

Note: clicking "Submit" signals acceptance of the comment policy printed below.

Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.

As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")

Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.

And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.

Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.

Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.

And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.