Supreme Court justices don’t need to be snowed over by technology.
‘Fourth Amendment for Dummies’ might help
Some of our Supreme Court justices have doubts regarding the court’s ability to weigh in on technology affecting national security (“Technology benched?” Jan. 8). Is this the same group that has no trouble allowing the newest technology to be covered by the Second Amendment? And, furthermore, would they not be ruling on the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, and not the latest use of bits and bytes?
JOE MUSICH, Minneapolis
Distinguish between gripes and values
I am glad the Metropolitan Council is hosting more public meetings to allow citizens to have deeper conversations about the proposed Southwest Corridor light-rail line, but I’m worried that the emphasis of the gatherings is solely to give residents a forum in which to gripe rather than providing an opportunity for decisionmakers and citizens to more fully understand shared values (“Light-rail meeting stirs anger,” Jan. 8).
What has been missing so far has been a more purposeful discussion that gets at the heart of what residents along the line, and throughout our region, value most. The small-group discussion questions at the Jan. 7 meeting at Kenwood Park attempted to plumb residents’ values around safety, sense of place, equity, green space, shared sacrifice and benefit, transparency of process, a healthier planet and so on. But because many people are still feeling unheard, even at this 11th hour, conversations and comments focused instead on demanding a change in alignment rather than a change in approach.
I hope we are not too late. And I hope the Met Council and all our leaders realize that when citizens trust that their values (not just their gripes) are truly informing decisions, they are more likely to accept inconvenience and champion a project’s success.
TRACY NORDSTROM, Minneapolis
• • •
As an avid bicyclist and longtime cycling advocate, I’m as frustrated at fellow cyclists as I am at any other party to the current controversy over Southwest light-rail transit.
I use light rail regularly to extend cycling trips, but have not yet seen this argument regarding SWLRT. It’s true that current Metro Transit light-rail cars could accommodate only a fraction of the daily Southwest Corridor bicycle commuting count. It’s also true that many bicycle commuters do it for the long ride, not to take their bikes on the train.
Nonetheless, economic and social-justice imperatives demand bold thinking. How about ordering one or more rail cars with dedicated bicycle sections, as have been used on Caltrain between San Francisco and San Jose? Metro Transit needs to meaningfully multiply its bicycle capacity in any way possible — not just for affluent commuters, but for the many riders and destinations that require a bicycle to complete the trip. The cost of losing the SWLRT project is simply too high to forgo this option.
From the moment Hennepin County acquired this corridor, “LRT” has been part of the name. The current situation teaches us that allowing other modes (whether rail freight or cycling) temporary use of future light-rail corridors is asking for political deadlock when it comes to actually installing light rail.
MATHEWS HOLLINSHEAD, St. Paul
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.