Minnesotans have been placed on notice
Regarding the Wilfs: Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior (“Governor questions Wilfs’ dealings,” Aug. 9). There are exceptions; however, why do the citizens of Minnesota have to bear the risk? For some, contracts are meant to be broken … temporary inconveniences to achieve a goal.
David Gair, Minneapolis
* * *
City-owned utility is wishful thinking
I don’t understand why the assumption is that the only way to cleaner, more affordable, more reliant local energy is through ousting Xcel Energy (“Beyond Xcel, the city would really excel,” Opinion Exchange, Aug. 9). In fact, that assumption seems to me outrageous in view of the lack of appreciation for the quantity of electrical energy required to sustain the quality of life Americans demand.
Imagine a day without air conditioning for the old, the disabled and the employed — those who work in buildings larger than, say, 100,000 square feet, where air conditioning is imperative. Imagine a week without refrigeration — no milk, no vegetables, no fruit, no meat. Imagine a month without manufacturing — industry survives only because of energy that powers the tools workers use.
The above is not an inclusive list of high-power consumers. The list goes on, and by far exceeds the electrical generation capacity of wind farms and solar panels. To assume new developments in renewable-energy sources will arise in the future to meet the demand is to believe the sales pitch of peddlers of the same equipment.
Following municipalization, skimming profits from energy sales to city residents to meet current and future financial obligations may be necessary, and the creation of appointed administrative positions will provide jobs for unemployed politicians, the children of politicians and the favorites of politicians. Other than that, I fail to see how Minneapolis residents will gain if the Xcel contract is not renewed.
Bruce A. Lundeen, Minneapolis
* * *
The domino effect of stingy companies
In the argument about executive pay, there is one more point that is important. If a company does not pay a living wage to its employees, it is raising taxes for all of us. After all, taxpayers must subsidize programs that help people have at least a minimal standard of living. Shouldn’t we charge/fine companies that have extremely high executive compensation but do not adequately provide for their employees?
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.