Readers Write (April 5): Plastic bag ban, Jamar Clark case, Dayton's travel ban, Paulsen's travel, the farm economy

Well, the Minneapolis City Council has just shot itself in the foot with another poorly thought-out decision when it voted to ban the use of plastic bags by retail stores in Minneapolis ("Bag ban breezes through council," April 2). Since I live close to Edina and Richfield, I will no longer shop at my Cub and Walgreens stores in Minneapolis, but will take my business to the Cub and Walgreens in Edina and Richfield. Pretty easy for me, but not helpful for the retailers located in Minneapolis. Unless there were a statewide ban on plastic bags, which I don't support, this will only hurt Minneapolis retailers.

Great job, City Council, and good luck getting re-elected.

• • •

In successfully arguing for the plastic bag ban, Minneapolis City Council Member Alondra Cano noted that humans survived "many generations" without such bags and thus we can "do it again." We humans also survived most of our history without centralized sewer and water systems. Applying Cano's logic, maybe the city should go back to backyard latrines and gathering water directly from the Mississippi River using clay pots.

I cannot believe that the City Council dedicated even one minute to its latest job-inhibiting initiative — burdensome bag restrictions — the same week that the Jamar Clark decision was announced. In the past year, the council's priorities have included bird-safe glass for skyways, installing traffic-snarling bike paths on major thoroughfares, and the relentless harassment of developers and employers trying to expand the city's employment and tax base.

How about focusing on public safety, police-community relations, education, transportation (cars, buses and trains — not bikes and skateboards) and working with business leaders to accelerate, rather than inhibit, the growth of the Minneapolis economy.

I am so frustrated with all of these Monday-morning quarterbacks who seem to think they could have done a better job than the police officers who took down Jamar Clark. I wasn't there and I didn't see it; neither did they. Some suggest that Clark should have been subdued with a stun gun, not realizing that this also would have hit the officer lying on top of him. And of course they didn't have stun guns. Some suggest using nightsticks or batons. Did either officer have batons? I've not heard either way. One writes that Clark could have been cuffed even if they there were no marks on his wrists. That person obviously has never been cuffed. One said that the films don't show Clark being aggressive. Well, someone or something scared the EMTs such that they locked themselves (including the driver) in the back of the ambulance and called for police protection. I've worked with some of those EMTs, and they don't scare easily.

What is wrong with the world? Gov. Mark Dayton has announced that non­essential travel to North Carolina for state employees is now forbidden ("Dayton takes on N.C.'s gender law," April 3). Does this mean that there are and have been such activities occurring on an ongoing basis, and that nonessential services and travel elsewhere is approved?

To me, government should not be doing anything that is not essential, or at least not at the taxpayers expense — or am I off-base here?

• • •

Just so there is no confusion, let's go ahead and assume all Minnesota business to North Carolina is nonessential. If y'all can't even decipher the difference between a man and a woman, we'd just as soon not do any business with your state.

Regarding "Paulsen's free trips are cause for debate" (April 4), I have no problem with U.S. Rep. Erik Paulsen taking limited international trips (legally paid for by outside interest groups) in order to gain a larger perspective on various issues. However, under no circumstances should Paulsen frequently be taking his wife or a daughter on these trips and having their expenses reimbursed by the same interest groups. Taking a staff person from Paulsen's office would be more valid and understandable than taking a close relative on such trips. This is really the heart of the matter. An elected official's actions should have the appearance of serving the public's interest. No other Minnesota member in Congress reportedly takes relatives on these international trips. Paulsen should follow suit, show some common sense and decide when to take a business trip or when to take a family vacation. It seems excessive that my congressman has attended so many international meetings with relatives: in Kenya (daughter); Prague (wife); Cuba; Rome (wife), Ethiopia (daughter), and Ireland. The congressman's 2016 weeklong trip to Kenya with his daughter, at a total cost of $27,357, unfortunately exposes Paulsen for his continued lack of good judgment and brings his actions under needed public scrutiny.

I saved for many years to take myself on a trip to Kenya, and I assure you that it can be done for a small fraction of the more than $27,000 that Paulsen spent. This merely confirms my perception that Paulsen is a poor successor to the honorable Jim Ramstad. I took two actions upon reading this article. First, I wrote this letter. Second, I canceled my donations to World Vision, which helped pay Paulsen's tab.

The April 2 letter "Yields up, incomes down. Costs?" missed the point of the April 1 Star Tribune article to which it was responding. Farmers' incomes took a significant hit in 2015. The response from the writer is that a nonorganic farm tax should be imposed. Such a tax would simply drive down further the income of farm families without solving any issue with water courses in Minnesota.

There are 73,600 farm families in Minnesota (from the USDA State Agriculture Overview for Minnesota, 2015). In corn and soybean production alone, they generate more than $8 billion in production. Yet the average farm family income as reported in the April 1 article is $26,586 for crop producers. Organic farming produces, on average, 25 percent lower yields than conventional agriculture ("Food Production vs. Biodiversity," Journal of Applied Ecology, 2013). More important to the point of the commentary, ammonia and phosphorus levels in streams are highest downstream from urban areas ("Nutrients in Nation's Waters," U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1136, 2013). In fact, one study showed that the concentration of total phosphorus was a median of nearly 0.3 milligrams per liter of water downstream from urban areas, but a little over 0.1 milligrams per liter of water downstream from agricultural areas. The logical conclusion from these data is that phosphates and nitrates in our streams are primarily due to urban behavior. Before we start imposing another tax on farmers who already are strained by low prices and at the same time risk reducing our food supply because of another tax, perhaps we should look at — and seek to change — urban behaviors if we want to improve water quality in our streams and rivers.