We don't need bigger developments

The original proposal by the developer of Heritage Village, of 596 apartments up to three stories, has now been reduced to 425 ["Heritage Village crucial to LI’s economic return," Editorial, Sept. 17]. The editorial board laments that "it’s a shame that the number of units and height of the buildings has been reduced so much." Apparently, the board does not live in Hicksville or drive on nearby North Broadway, an already severely overcrowded thoroughfare, gridlocked during rush hours. I agree that Long Island’s economic return is crucial, but not at the expense of local residents who must bear the brunt of long-term effects. Other pending Hicksville developments under the downtown redistricting plan should also be taken into consideration. I commend Town of Oyster Bay officials for scaling down the size of the development and hope to see more reduction. The editorial board asks whether a "four-story building ... is really too much of an ask?" Is it too much to ask the Newsday editorial board to consider the downside of overdevelopment and put the needs of the community above those of builders?

Seymour Spiegel,

Jericho

Let the rivers of science flow

Rivers can be dangerous, bringing untold damage to entire neighborhoods when their banks overflow. Pounding winds and crashing waves can destroy homes and lives, which is exactly what’s happening in some places now as we face unprecedented rivers of water, fire, and ignorance. As hurricanes flood the South and fires destroy vast areas of the West, smoke is spreading throughout the world to create a river of unbreathable air. Most dangerous of all, however, are the rivers of ignorance and blind faith as our nation succumbs to the rising waters of false belief. As global warming and the COVID-19 scourge our planet, too many people are refusing to accept reality. They believe the false prophecies of self-centered know-it-alls — be they politicians, news organizations or conspiracy theorists — who, in fact, ignore it all. Meanwhile, those of us who grasp onto science and real data lifeboats struggle to stay afloat even as the floodwaters of ignorance rise higher. Such is the cost of the river’s flow. Can we stem the tide and put the river back in its place, where logic and reason allow us to be hopeful again? Time will tell. Until then, we must continue the fight to stay afloat. Let the waters of ignorance lose their power and recede from the banks of humanity. In the end, we will surely prevail.

Harvey Heilbrun,

Shoreham

Ensuing politics after RBG’s death

The passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is distressing and heartbreaking. Not only was she a champion for women’s rights, but she also believed and pushed to make sure that "We the people" included everyone. Republicans blocked a vote for Merrick Garland more than eight months before the 2016 presidential election, saying that no Supreme Court justice should be rushed through in the year before an election. Now, those same Republicans are pushing their nominee forward six weeks before an election. I see the hypocrisy as head spinning and a disgrace, that this party has lost its way and its moral compass. To me, it has become a mindless, vacant vessel that bows to the will of one man. I believe our country is losing its center and the character of our nation. I fear that our democracy is in jeopardy. Democrats must fight this and stand strong.

Brenda Ferrante,

Lindenhurst

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s deathbed wish, it’s reported, was that she did not want President Donald Trump to select her successor. If accurate, it only demonstrates to me that even with death imminent, Ginsburg had little regard for the Constitution.

Dan Martin,

Babylon

Many Republicans followed Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s lead in 2016, refusing to hold a hearing on Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland. Now, six weeks before this election, McConnell promises a swift vote on President Donald Trump’s nominee. The big difference, McConnell says, is that in 2016, the pick would have been by a Democratic president but now it will be by a Republican, the same party that controls the Senate. The only word to describe this is hypocrisy, an example of situational ethics. Abhorrence of such behavior helped drive just enough Americans to vote for "change" in 2016, thinking a political outsider could change the trajectory of tribal politics. They hoped to end the gridlock paralyzing Washington and preventing collaboration across the aisle. Four years later, there’s no collaboration. The failures of our federal government are deeper and more concerning than ever. Loud minorities have lined up on opposite sides, shouting at one another, insisting their way is the only way, leaving large numbers of folks in the middle wishing for moderation. A quick push to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s large shoes will surely leave us further divided, with little hope of any meaningful "change," regardless of which candidate secures the next four years in the White House.

Maryellen Viola,

Massapequa Park