In my case, after a false alarm, the police flat-out refused to come back because I hadn’t paid.
I am a homeowner with an alarm monitoring system that I have had for over 25 years. About a year and a half ago, my alarm was tripped while I was away, and my alarm company called the Minneapolis police to respond. They determined it was a false alarm and sent me a bill for $30 (“Big bills touch off debate on alarm fee,” July 17). Because I found it incredulous that they would send me a bill for doing their job — to “protect and serve” — I ignored it. Several months later, my alarm was tripped again. When I did not respond to my alarm company’s call, the company called the Minneapolis police. The response was that police would not respond to my alarm because I had not paid my previous bill.
I ask you: Are the Minneapolis police here to protect and serve someone like me — a 65-year-old, law-abiding, taxpaying, 45-year citizen of north Minneapolis? Would it really hurt them to stop by my home perhaps once a year just for, perhaps, a “wellness check”? Maybe get to know me? Don’t tell me they don’t have time.
So I continue to pay my monthly alarm-monitoring fee for medical and fire emergencies only. I have no Minneapolis police protection.
Barbara Caruthers, Minneapolis
• • •
The article pointed out that the alarm company “must try calling the key holder, often the home or business owner, twice before they ask for police response.”
If this person can’t be bothered to answer the phone, or carry a cellphone, how is it unreasonable for the police to recoup their expenses for this waste of public resources?
Steve Hoffmann, Anoka
More government obstacles? Oh, joy.
The White House is looking to Congress to pass legislation that makes it more difficult for companies like Medtronic to relocate outside of the United States (“Medtronic deal has new hurdle,” July 17.) The United States tax rate on corporations is 35 percent. The corporate tax rate in Ireland, where Medtronic is proposing to shift its headquarters, is less than half that of the United States. If a goal of the Affordable Care Act is to reduce the cost of health care, why isn’t the White House thrilled at the prospect of Medtronic finding a way to reduce costs that can be passed on to the consumer?
Chris Lund, Hamburg
• • •
The same Jack Lew who once oversaw Citigroup subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and the Bahamas — notorious corporate tax havens — is now, as Treasury secretary, calling for a law to block tax inversion deals such as that being pursued by Medtronic? Why, that’s not hypocritical at all.
Instead of pushing for meaningful corporate tax reform, Lew is proposing a politically charged law that treats a symptom and not the cause of a complex and overly draconian U.S. corporate tax system fraught with loopholes.
John Grimes, Hopkins
• • •
In reference to the Medtronic deal with the Irish-based company Covidien, the company states that the deal is not about paying less in taxes.
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.