I'm a big supporter of SIP as it stands now. I think anything that empowers a community to take some sense of ownership of its own situation is empowering. It gives them a sense of belonging and validation for their place. My comments weren't at all meant as criticism of SIP.
That said, this only really addresses one dimension of the overall security threat posed to communal institutions associated with targeted communities. What I'm suggesting is that there are other dimensions that the government should consider with respect to providing and enhancing that sense of validation and ownership that communities have. One is what I described earlier in one of the recommendations, which is a recognition that no matter how many cameras you have, you do need the additional deterrent of power. We used to rely on law enforcement, even paying off-duty police officers to come to be a presence in front of synagogues and other communal institutions at high-risk points. However, that is becoming untenable because of its cost.
I think what I suggested offers a reasonable compromise, where the government can give some consideration to the costs attached to these kind of services and presence—