So let's get this correct: The speed cameras proposed for school zones are for the benefit of creating revenue for the various participants -- counties, villages -- and not for the safety of the children or the crossing guards ["Traffic cameras stalled," News, April 2]?
It's great to hear that our elected officials have placed the value of the dollar over the well-being of our youngest constituents. I'm all for the placement of speed cameras in schools zones -- but not as speed traps.
Richard Meyer, Lindenhurst
I'm happy that our state has the fortitude to stop this never-ending reliance on penalty-based revenue. Both Nassau and Suffolk counties want speed cameras to raise revenue.
Now that it looks as though this may not happen, will we get more red-light cameras? And when more revenue is needed, more cameras?
Can we figure out our budget problems without resorting to penalties, fines, racinos, fees and the like? Please find a way!
Robert Montelione, Massapequa Park
Distributing goods to needy children
Thank you to a recent letter writer for returning our attention to the exploding number of homeless children on Long Island ["Shocking count of homeless children," March 26].
Add to that number the children in foster care and financially struggling households, and we need a plan to share resources on Long Island.
As a retired public school teacher, I have witnessed the many gently used jackets, sweatshirts, mittens and lunchboxes left behind by busy children in our schools. These items wind up in a huge lost-and-found box waiting for kids or their parents to reclaim them. Then in the very hectic month of June, schools individually decide what to do with the piles of items.
My organization, Leaving Footprints, is a new nonprofit that connects the supply and demand. We match schools with agencies that will pick up the lost items, sort and clean them, and give them to kids who need them. Any schools or registered social services in Suffolk County wanting to join us may register at leavingfootprints.org.
Once we have trained volunteers to coordinate Nassau pickups, we plan to expand the program to the west.
Virginia Armstrong, Port Jefferson
Wind power could benefit Long Island
America lags far behind Denmark, Germany and the United Kingdom in offshore wind capacity. Now Long Island could boast the first utility-scale offshore wind installation in the United States ["Offshore wind plan," News, March 26].
Like any new power plant, the proposed Deepwater Wind farm requires upfront investment, but the fuel is free, insulating customers from fossil fuel price volatility.
We should jump at the chance to add wind to Long Island's energy mix. Wind turbines, which are most productive at night, are an obvious complement to solar power. Long Islanders also will benefit from reduced greenhouse gas pollution, protecting our economy and homes from the expenses of climate disruption. This would make Long Island a safer home for the next generation.
Deepwater Wind proposes to site the wind farm out of view of Montauk's waterfront and has taken extensive precautions to protect seabirds, whales and fisheries. The project is a great deal for Long Island.
Jeanne Brunson, South Setauket
Editor's note: The writer is a trained volunteer for the Climate Reality Project, which advocates for action on global warming.
U.S. treating Israel badly
I found the news in the article "U.S. balks at easier visas for Israelis" [News, March 30] offensive to Israel, one of our closest allies.
According to the article, Israel asked the United States to permit it to join 38 other countries in the U.S. Visa Waiver Program. The United States said it rejected Israel's request, in part, because of the country's treatment of Arab-American travelers. Israeli officials have denied any discrimination.
If the State Department is treating one of our few all-weather allies this way, one has to wonder what is really going on.
Mark I. Zobler, North Massapequa
Editor's note: The writer is on the Israel Affairs Committee of Temple Beth-El of Bellmore.
$6 in Sandy aid story misleading
It seems to me that the story about the Rubinsteins and their "outrage" over a $6 check from New York Rising is misleading ["After Sandy: $6 from NY Rising -- in 2 installments," News, March 22].
From the story headline and first few paragraphs, one sympathizes with this couple for receiving just $6 in Sandy damage compensation. Three-quarters of the way through the story, the reader finds out that the Rubinsteins already have received about $64,000 in Sandy aid from other sources.
This appears to be a deliberately sensationalitic way to present this story.
Mark Serper, Commack