Yet another set of brilliantly written letters to the editor made it into the Times-Picayune, following those we reported earlier in the week.

This one, by Civil Rights attorney Mary Howell, takes city and state leadership to task for engaging in secretive processes and wasteful planning practices.

In The Times-Picayune's Sunday editorial, you stated that you expect President Obama to keep his promise to build new hospitals "including a new medical center downtown." 

If indeed the new hospital were to be built downtown, many of the objections raised by residents, homeowners, business owners, health care advocates, city planners, preservationists and good government activists, would be resolved. Instead, the state has abandoned downtown New Orleans as LSU has bullied and pushed to build the new hospital in the lower Mid-City neighborhood.

Your editorial left out the connection between the president's promise and what he expects of us in return, as The Times-Picayune reported Aug. 23: "I also think the rest of the country is going to be insistent at a time of great fiscal challenge that money in the Gulf region is spent wisely, that local officials are coordinating effectively, that there is transparency and accountability to these processes, that there is a minimum of politics involved in decision making."

This seems to be a pretty tall order for the medical center process, which has reeked of politics from its inception, where citizens have been denied public hearings before the City Council and the City Planning Commission and where there is absolutely no confidence that money is being spent either wisely or well.

Perhaps while you all are busy urging the president to keep his promise, you should also acknowledge that our city and state leadership has failed miserably in living up to our end of the deal.

The next letter, by Melanie Ehrlich, the founder of the indispensible Citizen's Road Home Action Team, points out the blatant double-standard involving the Louisiana Recovery Authority's approach toward large commercial and institutional projects compared to the homes of average citizens.

There is a double standard in the thinking of the Louisiana Recovery Authority -- one standard for homeowner disaster victims and another for state, organizational, and commercial interests in a major building project. 

In the article about LRA's dispute over hurricane-flood damage to the 20-story Charity Hospital, the claim is that the structure, which sustained flood water in the basement and about 3 feet of water on the first floor, is more than 50 percent damaged. In that case, funding from FEMA for replacement, not just repair, is justified.

However, in LRA's oversight and rule-setting for the Road Home Program, homeowners in two-story or camel-back homes are routinely told that they do not have more than 50 percent damage even if flood waters reached 8 to 12 feet in their homes.

Equally discordant is LRA's assertion that its appeal of FEMA's damage assessment should be considered by an independent panel unaffiliated with FEMA.

Road Home applicants' disputes or appeals are decided by the contractor for the program or one of its subcontractors.

Secondary and final appeals are decided by the state review panel, including members of LRA and other state agencies with Road Home oversight.

So, LRA invokes independent appeals in its quest for FEMA money for replacing storm-damaged Charity Hospital. But Road Home applicants cannot get an independent appeal in their attempt to rebuild their storm-devastated homes.