The fact is, the beach has eroded. Most of what was set aside for the public has been lost to the tides. I have witnessed polite, well-mannered families trying to enjoy a sunny day at this same (almost always) nearly empty, mile-long stretch of deep, clean, sand beach ignominiously corralled like cattle by muscle-bound bouncers (no other term is frankly more appropriate) on ATVs into a small, fenced enclosure no more than a few feet wide because, according to well-placed signs, the "public beach" to which they had access was, on that day at least, 20 feet out from the shoreline in the middle of the ocean. As the author states, this is a complex issue and "there seems to be no rational settlement outside of a courtroom," so why give one side a tacit endorsement in your pages?

Ron Suppa
Westlake Village, Calif.

Thieves at the Till
Dear Editor:
James Prince and Scott Lasensky, authors of "The Alternative to Aid" (March 2006), appear to have a good comprehension of the political climate in the Middle East and its implications for investment in and aid to the Palestinian population. What the authors failed to highlight is the inner workings of the Palestinian Authority. Since its inception in 1993, it has been plagued by an enormous amount of corruption. Foreign aid has to be channeled through the local government. However, its distribution to the proper causes is questionable at best.

For example, Mr. Arafat is believed to have amassed a personal worth of more than $2 billion at the time of his death. Since Mr. Arafat was never involved in any official business enterprise and he did not own any businesses, the source of this personal wealth raises suspicions.

Although there is a great deal of international sympathy for the Palestinian people, oftentimes the money donated ends up in the wrong hands. This may well improve the personal wealth of certain leaders rather than the general population. Perhaps that is also why the Palestinians’ problems have not improved, despite the aid they receive.

Isaac Namdar
New York

Rare Classics
Dear Editor:
As the longtime co-owner of a 1930 Pierce-Arrow roadster, retired technical editor of the Pierce-Arrow Society and member of the Society of Automotive Historians, I know full well the competitive nature of the ongoing argument in classic car circles today about which was the better car: Pierce, Packard or Peerless. It will never get resolved to universal acceptance, and truth be told, all three were the pinnacle of quality and luxury of U.S. automotive production.

Permit me to add a few supplemental historic facts and corrections to Richard Pietschmann’s well-written and researched article, "Insatiable Drive" (April 2006). Among the three, only Pierce-Arrow was the official White House limousine, and served in that capacity from 1907 to 1937; the only exception was during the Hoover years because Herbert Hoover preferred Cadillac.

Mr. Pietschmann was mistaken that there were a lot of sporty and open Packards and Pierce-Arrows. The fact of the matter is, there actually were darn few originally made. Many of them may have ended up in the scrap drives of World War II, but this had nothing to do with their aluminum content. There was very little, if any, aluminum in those cars. The problem for Pierce and Peerless was that there were no longer any factories or dealerships around in 1941 to support parts and maintenance, so they were difficult to sell and had little residual value. It was easier to be patriotic and donate them for steel scrap.

Lastly, with respect to the 1934 Packard LeBaron V-12 boat tail roadster referenced in the article, there is a joke to the effect that "there are only about three dozen surviving of the seven or eight originally made." Meaning, of course, that there is a lot of understandable replication going on in restoration circles of that attractive and desirable icon.

Paul T. Stimmler
West Chester, Pa.

Worth welcomes your comments, critiques and suggestions. Please direct your letters to letters@worth.com