Readers Write: (April 11): Southwest LRT vote, heroin immunity, mortgage 'redlining,' immigration, cattail advance

  • Updated: April 10, 2014 - 6:22 PM

Racial bias wouldn’t make sense for lenders. There are other reasons for rejecting borrowers.


Photo: ., Tribune Media Services

CameraStar Tribune photo galleries

Cameraview larger


Met Council member’s vote fails smell test

I was disappointed to read that Met Council member Gary Cunningham, husband of Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges, provided one of the two dissenting votes against the Southwest LRT project.

It is my understanding that Met Council members are appointed by the governor to best represent the region. Cunningham states: “I stand with the elected representatives of the city of Minneapolis.”

Is this not a conflict of interest?

Melissa Becker, Maple Grove



Stanek’s stand against immunity is sensible

Regarding the April 10 Letter of the Day (“Saving lives must be priority in overdose situations”): I am a retired police officer and agree wholeheartedly with Hennepin County Sheriff Rich Stanek concerning any immunity law relating to reporting via 911 a heroin overdose. I do not have any problem with the basic concept of patrol vehicles carrying and administering Narcan to counter the effects of an overdose.

I would suggest, however, that Narcan should be more easily obtainable without a prescription, so that when a “friend” or “family member” or other person “gifts” an addict with heroin — truly, a gift to die for — they can have Narcan immediately on hand to administer. Of course, the problem then is that the responsibility for overdose and death, inherent in drug usage or supplying, might shift to users and suppliers, and in a good “nanny state,” we can’t have that.

I would agree that a priority is to save lives, but that should not allow those who have put those lives in jeopardy but who “harbored no intent” to gain immunity.

Mike Auspos, Ramsey



Racial bias shouldn’t be the first conclusion

An April 9 article (“Study sees signs of redlining”) indicated that “[m]inority residents in the Twin Cities are much more likely than white people of similar incomes to be rejected for a mortgage, whether they’re buying a home or refinancing.” The implication is that minorities are not being treated fairly by banks. I think that is highly unlikely. Banks are in business to make money, not to discriminate. Any bank employee, including a bank president, who suggested that the bank should pass up the chance to make loans to qualified candidates would quickly lose his or her job for two reasons. First, the bank would be forgoing millions of dollars in profits, which would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. Second, most large companies have policies against discrimination.

There are many factors that affect creditworthiness besides current income. Some of them are: the number of years at your current employer; the stability of your work history, savings and other financial assets, and whether the property is likely to appreciate in value. It is unfortunate that minorities have a harder time getting loans, but let’s not rush to blame banks for the situation.

  • get related content delivered to your inbox

  • manage my email subscriptions


  • about opinion

  • 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.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters