Opinions on the 2021 election: Readers Write

Bravo to Minneapolis City Council Member Jeremiah Ellison for articulating a framework that could lead to a concrete plan to reform the Minneapolis Police Department ("No one is proposing less public safety," Oct. 8). He had me up until the last paragraph, then lost me when he proposed that the only way to implement his plan is to change the city charter by voting "yes" to City Question 2.

Changing our city's charter (the city's constitution) should be a solemn and a well-thought-out event, not to be taken lightly. The Department of Public Safety charter amendment is so laughably vague it doesn't deserve a second thought, let alone inclusion into the city charter. Why didn't the City Council spend the year after George Floyd's murder exploring proposals like those in Ellison's commentary? Of course, the answer is that the City Council is shamefully inept. Its members should have come up with a solid plan for a new Department of Public Safety, explained it thoroughly to Minneapolis citizens, solicited input through the public forum, then have asked us to vote on a charter amendment to accommodate the implementation of their plan.

I'm insulted that those on the City Council think Minneapolis citizens are rubes, gullible enough to go along with a conniving scheme that asks us to change the charter first then trust that they will come up with a workable and effective plan for reform. Until the City Council can tell me exactly what the structure of a Department of Public Safety will look like, I will vote "no" on Question 2.

Steve Millikan, Minneapolis

•••

Six years ago, a police officer killed my next-door neighbor in his front yard in Wauwatosa, Wis., where I lived before moving to Minneapolis. My neighbor was having a mental health crisis and began fighting with his partner, who called 911. When police arrived, they drew their guns, and my neighbor got scared; he left his house and went into the front yard carrying a sword, and an officer shot and killed him. It was incredibly sad, and deeply traumatic for his partner and the dozens of other people — including small children — on our block who watched it happen.

I've re-evaluated that incident many times over the last six years because I can understand why the officers acted the way they did. My neighbor did, after all, have a weapon. However, I also wonder how things would have been different if 911 hadn't only sent armed police officers to his house. Would my neighbor still be alive if a mental health crisis responder had shown up who could de-escalate the situation?

Liam McMahon, Minneapolis

•••

The idea that we might lose the services of Police Chief Medaria Arradondo is appalling ("Arradondo's fate tied to city elections," Oct. 26). In meeting the enormously difficult demands of his position, Chief Arradondo has unfailingly performed with wisdom and grace. Are we prepared to sacrifice those rare qualities by passing a proposal that hasn't yet been seen as either thoughtful or coherent? I'm not.

Nancy B. Miller, Minneapolis

CITY QUESTION 1

In their Oct. 26 commentary, Elizabeth Glidden, Robert Lilligren and Peter Wagenius fail to distinguish between policymaking and administration ("The mayor already has huge power," Opinion Exchange). They also fail to note the many large cities that function well with a strong mayor. And, they leave unaddressed the issue of the Executive Committee, an unusual and unnecessary body that adds to what is already a complex and dysfunctional structure.

Fourteen bosses are too many, no matter how skilled or collaborative they may be.

Fourteen bosses make it impossible to hold anyone accountable.

Fourteen bosses are an expensive and inefficient way to run a major enterprise.

I join former mayors, numerous city department heads and thoughtful analysts like Jay Kiedrowski, as well as the League of Women Voters, to vote "yes" on City Question 1.

RENT CONTROL

If it is approved, landlords still will be profitable

Donna Hanbery, a suburban lawyer representing property owners and managers, is opposed to St. Paul's rent control measure — focusing on property taxes ("If you think property taxes are high now …" Opinion Exchange, Sept. 30). Belying her argument, she makes a number of assertions without data. While I do not have macro data either way, I have experience as a former landlord of a single-family house and a duplex. For over 20 years I rented to many families — all while providing housing for a brother rent-free. I kept the services professionally maintained, and through those years I never once "operated" the housing at a loss while never raising the rent. I self-financed the purchase of the properties and considered the property taxes as a cost of doing business along with all the utilities that I paid. This simplified financial obligations for myself as well as the renters, and eliminated a sense of worry. Contrary to Hanbery's assertions, my property valuations rose even before the recent housing crisis, and we've experienced corporate construction housing projects in my neighborhood. What do they know that Hanbery doesn't? That landlordism is profitable and will be even with limits on rental increases.

Joe F. Landsberger, St. Paul

MAYOR

In a front-page story ("Divided left field agrees: Don't rank Frey," Oct. 19), the Star Tribune implies that those opposing Mayor Jacob Frey's re-election are radical leftists. But I'm a mid-70s white guy, a country music fan who's been married over 50 years, who generally votes for candidates endorsed by the Star Tribune Editorial Board. I don't even know what "woke" means. But I won't be ranking Frey, either.

In its endorsement of Frey for re-election, the Editorial Board highlighted Frey's standing up to the "defund the police" crowd as the signature moment of his first term. I, on the other hand, would point to his decision to order the abandonment of the Third Precinct building — the precinct in which I live, paying taxes for police protection.

I had one brief conversation with Frey four years ago when he was campaigning for his first term as mayor. Even back then I was concerned about police-related issues and kept trying to ask him questions about the MPD. But Frey repeatedly turned the conversation back to affordable housing.

I get that affordable housing is an important issue, but here's the thing: Affordable housing is a market-driven problem, upon which even a unified City Council and mayor has minimal control. Whereas the mayor is in charge of the Police Department! I left that conversation wondering if Frey knew what job he was running for. And I still wonder.

John K. Trepp, Minneapolis

I grew up in St. Paul's Fourth Ward. Our city's strong sense of community, the way we look out for each other, is why I chose to stay here for college — now all the way in the Third Ward at Macalester. This November, we have an opportunity to continue looking out for each other by building on the immense progress on public safety we have made as a city over the last few years by re-electing Mayor Melvin Carter ("Depend on Carter to guide St. Paul," Editorial Board endorsement, Oct. 17). We all deserve to feel safe in our homes. And for each of us to feel truly safe, we need to reform our broken system. Mayor Carter is working directly with our community, activists and our Police Department and chief to create something that works better for all of us. I have been proud to be a part of this work as I served on the mayor's Community-First Public Safety Commission, where we developed a set of recommendations for good reform that is being implemented. Instead of only responding to crime, St. Paul is now addressing the root causes of crime by investing in our neighbors.

As St. Paul continues to lead the nation in public safety rebuilding and reform, we are lucky to have a son of a St. Paul policeman, a man of great empathy and a skilled team player leading our city into the future. For this and many other reasons, I couldn't be prouder to support Mayor Melvin Carter in his re-election.

Sami Banat, St. Paul

CITY COUNCIL

Four races in which the Editorial Board got things wrong

Wade Luneburg, Minneapolis

•••

I live in Minneapolis and in the 11th Ward, so this endorsement of Council Member Jeremy Schroeder might actually mean something ("Koski's approach stands out," Editorial Board endorsement, Oct. 15).

Most of those who will be voting with me from the 11th Ward live in the relative comfort that being upper-middle class and white affords them in Minneapolis. That Schroeder is actually doing something about issues impacting Minneapolitans beyond our ward is not only the "right balance," but the only way forward in a city with shamefully disparate living conditions and municipal services. If you, like me, get to sleep at night in a single-family home and are surprised by anything that might be mistaken for the sound of gunfire, I hope you'll remember that this is not all our neighbors' experience.

Our past president set a new standard for self-centeredness that we should be embarrassed emulating; we need to be better than voting for our own comfort. Please join me in voting for Jeremy Schroeder for a better and safer Minneapolis for all residents.

•••

As a resident of the 13th Ward, I have to disagree with the Editorial Board's assessment that Linea Palmisano is a voice of reason (Oct. 16). I feel she is just the voice of the status quo. I disagree with her positions on all three ballot questions. The flier she left on our door just promised platitudes about vaguely doing things to address the concerns of voters that led to the ballot questions in the first place. The Police Department needs help to address many of the situations that it is called on to assist with, and a Department of Public Safety could help officers in those situations. Just telling me that she'll invest in new, proven strategies of violence prevention says to me that nothing will change. We need to use this moment boldly for real change, and that is why Palmisano won't be getting my vote.

Karl Palazzolo, Minneapolis

•••

By my count, the Star Tribune endorsed all Democrats for City Council races. That's too many, even for a true-blue, lifetime, rather partisan, former DFL officeholder like me.

Unfortunately, we can't count on the local the Trumpster-controlled Republican Party to balance anything. Their candidates are not endorsable. But there are nonpartisans with vision who can and should be part of the solution.

Twelfth Ward candidate Nancy Ford is one of them ("Give Johnson a third term," editorial endorsement, Oct. 16). She truly is independent who feels no need to be in the go-along-get-along, think-alike City Hall clique.

Admittedly, Ford doesn't fit the mold of most candidates. She's atypically blunt, has a backbone and answers questions clearly.

For example, Ford was appalled when her opponent, eight-year incumbent Andrew Johnson, took the stage at the infamous Powderhorn Park fest last year, and vowed to defund the police. Obviously, Ford opposes Question 2, the police dismantlement amendment. Ford also opposes the rent control amendment, thinking it leads to slums; Johnson favors it. Ford wants to change ordinances so new apartment buildings must include green space and off-street parking and cannot be built from the front sidewalk to the back alley. She also opposes the up-zoning of all residential properties in Minneapolis. Johnson disagrees.

From the start of her campaign, Nancy Ford openly supported positions that the Star Tribune later embraced on the most important issues facing us. Nonetheless, she was passed over for endorsement. Conversely, incumbent Johnson, who opposes every major editorial position the paper wrote, got the nod.

Our city needs council members who ask hard questions more than it needs followers. It needs critical-thinking people with open minds, strong spines with inquisitive vision like Nancy Ford's.

Wes Skoglund, Minneapolis