Body cams: What’s wrong with picture?
I have mixed feelings over your editorial "Police reforms a good start" [Opinion, Dec. 2]. While civilian oversight is a good idea, I am distressed that Nassau and Suffolk counties buckled under the pressure from the respective county police benevolent associations to pay their police officers just for wearing body cameras.
If a body cam is now part of the uniform, and wearing the uniform is part of the job, why is it necessary to pay a police officer to comply with the requirements of the job? Should I press my boss for extra money because I am required to wear a suit and tie to work?
If you don’t want to dress appropriately, get another job.
— Ira Bezack, Hauppauge
One of the highest-paid police departments in the nation will be paid to wear body cameras at $1,000 a year for the first three years and $3,000 per year thereafter. Add an extra cost to Suffolk County for purchasing them, etc. for $24 million ["Suffolk deal on policing reforms," News, Dec. 2]. Why must they be paid extra for using body cams to do their jobs, as required, "to protect and serve"?
And why does the Suffolk Police Benevolent Association have so much power over our legislators?
— Judi Gardner, Melville
SALT deductions depend on filers
The implication of your editorial "LI needs a big win on SALT" [Opinion, Nov. 28] is ridiculously broad. The value of this state and local tax deduction to any given taxpayer on Long Island depends on each filer’s circumstances. Are you a renter or homeowner? Where on the Island do you reside? Are you working or retired? If you are a homeowner with a mortgage, where are you in the amortization schedule? Do you have large unreimbursed medical expenses?
The foregoing, along with other itemizable deductions, must be viewed against the standard deduction. As the editorial noted , any increase in the SALT deduction will benefit the wealthiest.
Nobody likes to pay taxes, but the editorial disregards the principles of progressive income taxation and basic tax equity.
— Eric Jurist, Wantagh
Spitefulness not a good look in village
The editorial "Ruling needed in Third Track case," regarding the Denton Avenue bridge, was spot-on [Opinion, Nov. 24]. As a longtime Garden City resident, it is outrageous that the village chose to hold up or delay issuance of the necessary work permit, thereby causing an unwarranted and needless delay toward completion of the overall Third Track project, one that will benefit all Long Islanders, including those of Garden City.
The motive? Seemingly, the village, in a fit of pique, having lost its lawsuit over the placement of monster utility poles (appeal pending) is dragging its feet regarding the issuance of the needed work permit for the project to proceed.
So now the Metropolitan Transportation Authority has been forced to sue the village, whose residents/taxpayers will foot the bill for the village’s frivolous and shameful conduct.
The village and its affected property owners have every right to protest and, if necessary, litigate the pole placement. However, one issue has nothing to do with the other and should not be linked.
Garden City is a wonderful place to live and has much to offer. Spitefulness and intransigence are not among them.
— Tony Puccio, Garden City
It’s good for Garden City rail commuters that the Long Island Rail Road has not sunk to the same level of pettiness that has been achieved by their village government. If it did, the LIRR would have stopped serving the station and would simply discontinue service until the permit for the overpass construction had been granted.
— Kenneth J. Buettner, Port Washington
Move Yaphank station? This proposal is better
The government wants to use $20 million to move the Yaphank station, which I’d say is used by maybe a few dozen riders a day ["Site pitched for new Yaphank station," News, Nov. 20]. Better use would be to raise the tracks at William Floyd Parkway that affect thousands a day. Not to mention the lives saved of the people of the tri-hamlet peninsula who would have to evacuate the area if action is not taken to fortify the coastline.
— Bob Morrow, Mastic Beach
Cartoon on school shooting a bad idea
Just saw Matt Davies’ cartoon [Opinion, Dec. 2] showing a group of scared youngsters running for the exit, screaming, "Active shooter!" and the box below saying, "Critical race in schools." This comment is so out of order, making fun of sad murders in a Michigan school!
— Mike DeSousa, Kings Park