When Theodore Wirth came to Minneapolis, he set aside public lands so that we could all enjoy our most precious resources — like our lakes and rivers. But he also wisely decreed that there should be a park within a few blocks of every home — so that all Minneapolis children and families would have a place to connect with nature and with one another. One hundred years later, our neighborhood parks are in trouble. With no adequate funding source, they are falling into disrepair. With the achievement gap as one of the most important issues facing our city, I commend our civic leaders' efforts to fix this problem. Park Board staff and volunteers work hard to develop the character of our young people through outdoor activities, but the crumbling infrastructure around them makes the job difficult. Parks are the great equalizer of our world. Let's make sure they are equally great across our great city.
John Munger, Minneapolis
JAMAR CLARK CASE
It isn't a lose-lose; we all win if justice is served objectively
Jon Tevlin unfortunately portrays Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman in an unfavorable manner, choosing to focus on his age and his political misfortunes in an article about the Jamar Clark case ("Freeman's decision a lose-lose," March 29). Tevlin also misstates the issues in the case. There are more than two possible outcomes. Tevlin writes that Freeman could anger police officers and the union or he could anger civil-rights activists, but a third possible outcome, which transcends the first two, is that justice could be served. If justice prevails, it would be good for the community at large even though some members of the community might not like what results. Justice transcends feelings of rage. Justice is the essence of an ordered society.
Norman Teigen, Hopkins
PLASTIC BAGS
Proposed ban, and discussion around it, reflects a larger issue
I found the stark contrast in the two March 28 letters about the proposed plastic-bag ban in Minneapolis to be particularly striking and reflective of the wide divide on a variety of issues facing the country today. The lead item put forth a compelling argument of why the move to outlaw plastic bags is not supported by research. It quoted many reputable studies and presented its case in a factual fashion and rational fashion.
The third letter presented its argument for a "practical non-choice mandate." It wandered through a number of touchy-feely behavioral anecdotes that the author claims will lead to unsupported benefits of reduction of effort and waste and ultimately will lead to "saving us all money." It states that, even after years (not to mention untold dollars) have been spent on "consumer education," the mandate is the obvious next choice. One can only assume that this must be because consumers are not smart enough to absorb the message and therefore should not be left to their own choices.
The whole notion of a "practical non-choice mandate" strikes a large portion of this country's population as the equivalent of "I'm smarter than you, and since you don't seem to understand, you obviously need to be forced to do the right thing." This, to me, is a microcosm of the basic divide that exists in this country today between those who believe that the government knows what is right for you and therefore should dictate behavior and the side that believes in personal choice. For those of us in that latter portion of the population, personal freedom trumps smart every time.
Mark Plooster, Plymouth
• • •
All of this hand-wringing over our dependence on trashy plastic bags!
What on Earth will we do if we can't have what we're used to using?