Readers Write (March 6): Minneapolis development, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and GMOs, evangelical voters

Having lived in the North Loop area for 16 years, I've witnessed firsthand the amazing evolution of a tired, derelict portion of downtown into a dynamic, boutique retail and restaurant mecca booming with new condos, apartments, families, kids and dogs. It is even becoming a destination spot for sophisticated "foodies" seeking out the latest restaurant trend. To my knowledge, not one dime of downtown Minneapolis (i.e., the Downtown Council) tax investment has supported this renaissance.

Sadly, mere blocks away, sits Nicollet Mall, scarred and broken in the hopes that a $20 million revitalization effort will turn things around by attracting new retail and dining establishments. But lately, it feels more like the Block E boondoggle of 30 years ago.

Poor planning and cost overruns plague the mall project. The upscale retail dream of 30 years ago, when Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue, Williams-Sonoma and Gaviidae Common signaled a brief return of the mall to an elegant destination shopping venue, slowly dissipated and in its place now sits Walgreens, Sports Authority (now in bankruptcy), Men's Wearhouse and the like. The mall is a cold, dark canyon in the summer time and uninhabitable in the winter. Empty storefronts populate the sidewalks. Incredibly, the new plan will still allow buses to groan their way up and down the mall, allowing for crowded, noisy bus stops. Few developers ever build around a bus stop. The hope for a revitalized retail destination on Nicollet Mall seems to be a fool's dream, no matter how many new trees, benches and sidewalks are installed.

The real excitement in downtown Minneapolis development will continue be in the North Loop, closely followed by the "Northeast" area of Hennepin and University avenues. These development areas are, for the most part, funded by private investment in a grass-roots manner. Soon, the upscale, boutique national chains will make their appearance in these two revitalized areas — something mall developers and planners can only dream of.

It is appropriate to see U.S. Amy Klobuchar's picture on the Business page March 2 ("Senate panel OKs ban on GMO labeling laws"). She has moved to representing business more than those of us who voted for her as a Democrat who would look out for the common good. Notice the article on the same page about the high earnings of one of the companies for whom the senator voted to have the medical-device tax removed. That was done in the name of reducing job loss — when there was no significant job loss.

As the Star Tribune states about the recent vote by the senator as a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, "the vote gave the food industry, including Minnesota-based companies such as Cargill, General Mills, and Land O'Lakes, everything it wanted to derail state GMO labeling laws." States will no longer be able to require the food industry to disclose genetically modified organisms in their product. The practice will now be called "voluntary labeling." The word "voluntary" is a much-used word by Republicans who want to reduce the effectiveness of laws.

• • •

The writer is a retired agribusiness consultant.

• • •

I'm writing in support of Klobuchar and her decision to oppose mandatory labeling of GMOs. Our world faces many serious health and environmental problems, from vitamin deficiencies to drought, and genetic engineering offers the promise of solutions. I would like to thank Sen. Klobuchar for heeding evidence and not anti-­science rhetoric.

It's unlikely that politicians will heed a Feb. 28 letter writer's request that they stop seeking support from "evangelicals." Nor should they. Evangelicals are a significant part of the voting public. They have issues they care about sincerely and sometimes thoughtfully, however much mainstream voters may disagree or puzzle over them. They have the same right to be heard and courted as the myriad other interest groups that make up the electorate. If they raise money for candidates and causes, that is their right.

That's not to say all the visions of a good society that evangelicals pursue are what America needs. It's unlikely some of them can be achieved in ways consistent with America's acceptance of diverse faiths, races, ethnicities and ways of living together. Evangelicals believe that no human law should be obeyed if it conflicts with what God's laws require, so there is a built-in tension between the folks in those communities and the broader, more secular society. The conflict is not a war but a wariness, a recurring unease.

For evangelicals, however, the tension may seem more threatening and unfair, for they are a persistent remnant of what once was a religious worldview that had substantial control over the American culture, its legal system, educational systems and political structure. Evangelicals' former confident belief that America was a Protestant Christian nation of which they were its proper leaders has been eroded by changes in the larger culture. The Bible-believing literalists now must live with public laws and court decisions that their former national culture would never have allowed. More poignantly, they have seen many of their ­public-school-educated children leave for other faiths and ways of life. Their sense of being under attack is real. They have been circling their wagons now for more than a hundred years.

Secularists may cheer — they may say it's "payback time." But if those of us outside the evangelical community believe in community diversity and open acceptance of those who differ from us, we would do well to seek to understand what the evangelical communities value, to understand what makes their leaders and their followers afraid. We would do well to look for common ground with them so as to be respectful fellow citizens even when our life ways clash. Better to live in peace than to goad neighbors with whom we disagree until they give up on seeking the mutual respect and cooperation which make a good society real.