The New York Times wrote and interesting editorial about Mississippi and the Port of Gulfport, a piece that discusses the controversial decision to move $600 million to the port project and away from housing reconstruction that could have helped people like James Johnson, whose story is told in the editorial:

This is not what Congress envisioned when it approved an initial $5.5 billion in disaster relief for Mississippi. It was disaster aid. The law required states and localities to spend 50 percent of the money on low- and moderate-income families. Over time, however, the state managed to get waivers and found other ways to spend the money on different projects.

In Mr. Johnson’s case, the problem was too narrow a definition of disaster relief. According to a startling new report by the Steps Coalition, a watchdog group, Mr. Johnson and thousands of other homeowners were shut out of the state’s assistance program because their homes were destroyed by wind rather than water.

While many Mississippians languished without help, the Bush administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development allowed the state to shift $600 million of the recovery money to the refurbishment and expansion of the Port of Gulfport — a pet project of local politicians that was conceived long before Katrina.

With housing still the top concern on the coast, Republican leaders have lots of questions to answer about the way federal recovery funds have been spent.

To date, leaders like Gov. Haley Barbour and Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant have supported the rebuilding of industry at the cost of rebuilding homes. Certainly industry must be rebuilt for jobs to return and for people to afford to live on the Gulf Coast.

That said, a balance should be struck between revitalizing the economic machine of the coast and rebuilding the homes and communities that shelter the people there. A great failure has occurred on the latter.