The directory sites/canarsie.our-hometown.com/files/images does not exist.
2006-06-08 / Letters/Opinion

What's Your Opinion?

Responses compiled and photographed by Bill O'Neill

QUESTION: The Department of Homeland Security announced that New York City's federal anti-terror funds would be reduced nearly in half because the city has "no national icons to protect and lousy defense plans." But some cities, in states like Florida and Wisconsin that have never been terrorist targets, are getting substantial increases. Do you think this is fair? Why or why not?


"It's not fair because this is the financial capitol of the world. This is where they aimed before. This is the target. That's the way it is. They hit the target - and they'll come back for more. We'd better be prepared - not ship the money elsewhere. That's silly!" Ivory Stone, Canarsie"It's definitely not fair. What about the Empire State Building? Isn't that a national icon? It's absolutely unfair. I could understand if they needed it for big cities - like Chicago or Los Angeles. But the smaller towns - obviously, they don't need it. They don't have national icons. If they did, they would be heavily populated." Marilyn Navarro, Manhattan"I think it's unfair to take the money away from New York. It's not only an atttack that has to be prevented. But God forbid there is an attack - they need more money for hospitals, shelter and the law enforcement afterwards." Shannon Lucas, Canarsie"It's stupid and unfair because New York City is the biggest city - and will always be the target. I think they should keep the budget the same. Maybe not increase it. But definitely not decrease it. Of course, we have national icons - like the Statue of Liberty - that have to be protected." Osvaldo Jaquez, Canarsie

Return to top

Copyright© 2000 - 2017
Canarsie Courier Publications, Inc.
All Rights Reserved