Readers Write: Accessibility, decarbonization, wolves, ‘junk fees,’ standardized tests

Opinion editor’s note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

In regard to “Accessible City Hall? Try visiting in a wheelchair” (March 10) I totally get where Star Tribune reporter James Walsh is coming from. I am not in a wheelchair; in fact, I am usually normally mobile. However, some years ago I broke my foot and was consigned to crutches for six weeks. Up until that time I was convinced (by seeing all the handicap-accessible signs everywhere) that our city was completely accessible.

I was wrong.

A restaurant I visited whose entrance was described as accessible due to there being no stairs was entered through two heavy doors with vestibule in between that operated manually and pulled outward. Try this on crutches. Even worse in a wheelchair.

Restrooms labeled accessible very often had a lower sink and an accessible stall, but again doors to exit were heavy and only opened inward. Impossible in a wheelchair and very difficult for a person on crutches who can only put one foot on the ground.

The handicap-accessible ramp to a hospital was at a 20-degree grade and more than half a block long. Exhausting for a manually operated wheelchair, very difficult on crutches.

Likewise, the accessible entrance on another hospital’s parking ramp led to two heavy, manually operated doors that opened outward.

Thank you to Walsh for pointing out these real and potentially dangerous issues for people with mobility issues.

Carol Henderson, Minneapolis

---

I was reading the Sunday article about accessibility at St. Paul City Hall and was sympathetic, but as a Minneapolitan across “the great water,” I resisted the temptation to judge until I got to St. Paul City Council Member Rebecca Noecker’s observation that “It’s probably time for us to make some changes.” I worked with the State Council for the Handicapped in St. Paul way back in the 1970s. Seems to me it’s well past time.

Jeff Moses, Minneapolis

No matter our race, income or homeownership status, we’ll see the climate crisis proceed into its next stages, and we must collectively respond to the crisis. Much of our existing housing stock is inefficient, and half of our city carbon emissions come from buildings. The path to decarbonizing a home requires many steps, upfront costs and many different contractors. As such, I want to see a citywide program to serve as a one-stop shop for residential decarbonization in St. Paul. This program should have no upfront costs, and provide incentives for landlords so that everyone, homeowners and renters alike, is able to create the climate-resilient homes we need.

Some people think that it should be up to individuals to make the necessary improvements to their homes. However, such a mindset limits who can be involved in climate action to more affluent individuals, thus cutting out a lot of people who want to make an impact but can’t.

I encourage you, readers, to call your local City Council member and ask them about their plans for decarbonizing St. Paul homes. If you’re interested in the campaign to create a sustainable future in our city, come to the next Young Adult Coalition base meeting on April 1 at Macalester College, 5-7 p.m.

Ned Keyse, St. Paul

Maureen Hackett seems to be howling, but for what, I’m not sure. Her recent contribution (”Wolf hunting, trapping is unnecessary, destructive,” Opinion Exchange, March 11) to the ongoing debate on wolves only perpetuates the vocal extremism that exists on either side of this topic. The original population recovery goal was 1,251 to 1,400 wolves. The latest midwinter wolf population estimate is 2,919. Wolves currently populate all of what is believed to be suitable habitat in the state. For Hackett to claim that the wolf hunting and trapping that occurred in 2012-2014 “wiped out 35 years of conservation” is alarmism. There have not been any statistically significant changes in Minnesota’s wolf population since 1998. This includes the years during and after the wolf hunt.

Kyle Thompson, Staples, Minn.

I found the article in the March 12 Star Tribune regarding the bill to eliminate “junk fees” both appealing and distressing (”Bill would eliminate ‘junk fees’ for buyers”). The appealing part is the requirement that any mandatory fees or surcharges be included in the advertised or list price for goods and services. The hidden junk fees referenced were convenience fees, service fees, wellness fees, etc., from ordering at a restaurant and getting concert tickets to buying products online and all other junk fees at the end of purchases.

The distressing part of the bill is that it allows restaurants to add automatic tipping at the end of a transaction. Tipping at restaurants should be determined by the person receiving the service and not by restaurant owners. It is a freedom of choice that would be denied.

The author of the bill stated, “Folks are being nickel and dimed by these extra fees.” Folks are also being nickel and dimed by Minnesota taxes, Hennepin County taxes, transit taxes and metro-area housing taxes.

Melvin Ogurak, Eden Prairie

I was glad to hear the state Legislature will take on the proliferation of anti-consumer junk fees that have proliferated in recent years. I would encourage them to go beyond forcing disclosure and enact an outright ban. To me they are particularly egregious in restaurants where the fees are “disclosed” in four-point font at the bottom of the menu followed by a convoluted explanation that they are for employee benefit but not a gratuity.

Sam Van Alstyne, St. Paul

The article “New-look SAT ditches the No. 2 pencils” in Saturday’s paper points to a new digital SAT high-school test that will likely provide a lot less rigor, uniformity, fairness, student incentive and usefulness to everyone. It may be an overreaction to the effects of the pandemic over the last few years.

The changes listed shorten the time needed to take the exam, allow more time for each question and provide a calculator to help with all math questions. Readings will be shorter, often one paragraph with only one question, much reducing the testing of a student’s ability to organize facts and use good judgment to manage complex situations. Importantly, “In both reading and math, test-takers who perform well early in the exam will receive harder questions as they go along,” which suggests an artificially harder test and lower grade for the best students. The new exam may fail to justly measure and point out student capabilities and determination, which lead to excellent performance at higher levels.

In carpentry we are advised to “measure twice; cut once.” But this depends on a tape-measure that is long enough and does not stretch, a reliable standard. It is similar in education: Measure your aptitudes and progress as best possible in high school, with a reliable and standard test, then plan for further education that will fit your intended career.