TODAY'S PAPER
Good Afternoon
Good Afternoon
OpinionLetters

Letters: Disagree with judgment on Obama

A recent letter praised President Barack Obama's work with Iran and questioned why his popularity is at an all-time low ["Obama's success in Iran laudable," Dec. 3]. How about the economy, unemployment, Benghazi, The Associated Press and IRS scandals, Syria and Obamacare?

He said people could keep their health insurance when he knew all along that it was a lie. He knew that his own party would never have supported the health care reform without that assurance, and now, the American people no longer trust him.

The president talks about helping the middle class an uncountable number of times, yet five years into his presidency, we are worse off than ever. The middle class is now going to subsidize those who cannot afford health insurance, and at a big price.

John Gelormino, Hicksville

The letter writer is very good at making broad generalizations that require more serious scrutiny. He gives President Barack Obama credit for ending the war in Afghanistan, even as we negotiate to keep more troops there. The president is also given credit for killing Osama bin Laden, although the vast majority of the planning and groundwork was done before Obama took office.

As for achieving national healthcare reform, this was done with an ill-planned website, it has barely gotten off the ground, and the actual viability of the program's structure is in serious doubt. The full ramifications of the deal to deter Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,, which keeps much of Iran's nuclear structure intact, are being debated.

Most disturbing is the writer's assertion that "the real problem . . . may be the increasing outdatedness of our two-party congressional form of governance." I suppose he'd prefer a one-party system that runs its will roughshod over the rest of the population? Or a president who is never questioned or opposed?

What some call obstructionism is the crux of the balance of powers the Founding Fathers created.

Frank Aimetti, Hicksville

Local bow hunters could cull deer

I don't understand the necessity or logic of bringing in federal sharpshooters to cull Long Island deer ["The deer kill is a sad necessity," Editorial, Dec. 12].

New York has more than enough licensed hunters to handle the deer "crisis." If the Department of Environmental Conservation would let archery hunters bait deer, give out more doe tags upon license application, extend the hunting season and reduce the footage from 500 to 150 feet, local hunters could cope with the overpopulation. These are all measures the DEC is considering for sharpshooters.

Also, East Enders need to open up their private land more willingly to bow hunters. They talk about the deer problem, but the reality is when most are asked for permission to hunt on their property, the door is closed.

Town governments could set up registries for bow hunters to connect them to landowners having a deer problem. In addition, sporting goods stores, taxidermists and butchers would get more local revenue, allowing the state to collect more sales taxes.

Fred Eavarone, South Huntington

For years, the folks on the East End have been told this overpopulation of deer would happen, but bringing in sharpshooters won't work. It's been tried before.

As a bow hunter for more than 35 years, I've heard every complaint from the folks on the East End. Deer cause accidents, they eat flowers, they are pests. But ask these folks to give you premission to hunt on their property, and it's "no way."

I say let in the bow hunters, and you'll see results -- and they don't have to pay for our arrows. It's time the East End faced its problem with some common sense.

Jack DiGirolamo, Bellmore

Discrimination ruling goes against logic

The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Arthur D. Spatt against the Village of Garden City is a classic case of judicial activism ["Judge: Village zoning change discriminatory," News, Dec. 7].

If a developer wants to build 100 percent apartments at high density on a site, and the local zoning board says no, that's "discrimination" due to a "disparate impact" on minorities, in the judge's opinion.

Never mind that the revised zoning wasn't limited to single-family homes, but also allowed town houses and apartments. The ruling implies that every time there's an available housing site, it must be used for affordable housing at maximum density, or else discrimination has occurred.

There is no law that says this. Shall we also decree that a developer should not be allowed to build $2 million-plus individual co-op apartments in Manhattan because there's a disparate impact on those who cannot afford them?

Douglas Hoffmann, Garden City

Columns