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

•••

Sheldon Jacobson's commentary ("Dark days ahead — and changing clocks make it worse," Opinion Exchange, Nov. 2) is another example of what seems to be a recent litany of complaints: according to him, we are "tormented by time changes"! Somehow, changing this week from daylight saving time to standard time, and then back again in the spring, will be so difficult!

The reason for this simple change is obvious at our northern latitude, when days range in length from about 8.75 hours in December to over 15.5 hours in June. If we kept going all year with daylight time, at the December solstice, sunrise would be around 8:48 a.m. — thus quite dark until 9:30 a.m. Changing to standard time (with sunrise an hour earlier) makes the cold mornings a lot less forbidding. Furthermore, in the cold weather, we don't mind that sunset comes as early as 4:30 p.m. — we are not engaged as much in outdoor activity.

In spring, when the days lengthen, and we change back, daylight time makes our summer solstice sunset as late as 9:04 p.m., which is wonderful for outside activity in the warm weather. And sunrise at 5:27 a.m.? Well, the birds wake us up!

So — why is this change in time, by only one hour, and only twice a year, so challenging and such a hardship, and why does it cause so many plaintive objections? It simply makes sense (which might be why we've been doing it for decades). Why make a change when the existing system works just fine?

Philip Bradley, Minneapolis

Jacobson's piece on daylight saving time is spot-on. Hours of daylight do not "spring forward" or "fall back." Daylight is reduced on both ends in the winter in the northern hemisphere. Humans cannot change that fact any more than King Canute could change the tides. People, businesses and schools can choose to adjust their schedules. Changing the "time," however, is one of the more inane pieces of legislation ever devised.

V. John Ella, Robbinsdale

•••

Seriously?! Jacobson's suggestion to replace switching between standard time and daylight saving time is to permanently make a 30-minute change? And, what is with his naive assumption that Canada will simply follow along like a puppy? A 30-minute change would put us out of sync with the rest of the world except India, making coordinating meetings and events with partners, suppliers, branch offices, regulators, etc., not in the U.S. (or the magically compliant Canada) far more difficult. Sure, stop switching time twice a year, just do it intelligently. His comments only reinforce the perception that academics are out of touch with the real world and its real problems.

Terrance Brennan, Hugo

The truth is that contracts for deed are beneficial conveyancing devices that allow buyers who are otherwise not bankable to obtain financing directly from the seller. During my 40-plus years of practicing real estate law, I frequently wrote and presented seminars to lawyers regarding contracts for deed. I also helped clients with scores of contract-for-deed transactions. From that experience, I know that contracts for deed have been utilized in countless mutually beneficial transactions. They have enabled many buyers who lack a sufficient down payment or an adequate credit rating to enjoy the benefits of homeownership. I also know that the vast majority of contract-for-deed sellers do not want to cancel the contract and take back the property after a default by the buyer. Rather, they simply want the buyer to fulfill the terms of the contract.

Surely, there have been abuses by unscrupulous contract-for-deed sellers (just as there have been dishonest mortgage-loan originators). As with any other predatory lender, such persons should be disciplined. Similarly, there have been contract-for-deed buyers who did not fully understand all aspects of the transaction. The best solution for such buyers is knowledge. That can come from community education programs or consultation with competent lawyers, real estate professionals or other trusted advisers.

John Brennan, Plymouth

The U.S. should use its considerable clout with Egypt and Israel to carve out a Gazan refugee enclave within either country where food, water, shelter and medical care can be provided through the United Nations.

That way, Israel can get civilians out of danger as they seek to disarm Hamas as a fighting force. The shelling of densely populated neighborhoods — even if there are legitimate military targets using them as shields — is just wrong.

Carve off some portion of that proposed $14 billion military aid package to Israel to buy beds and bandages rather than bombs and bullets.

There is simply a lack of imagination and/or will to find a third way out of this crisis — a solution that addresses the humanitarian crisis while taking into account a military imperative.

The two options of a full-out assault in Gaza with civilians in danger or a cease-fire present a false choice. There is another way.

Ben Weisbuch, Hopkins

•••

I worked as a child advocate for decades. Because I worked to improve the lives and life chances of youth, and because I am an American Jew, I am compelled to demand the U.S. use its outsized influence with Israel to see that an immediate cease-fire and delivery of humanitarian aid is carried out.

Sharon Jaffe, Minneapolis

Good for Bloomington for encouraging the transition to electric vehicles ("Bloomington hopes to encourage more to choose electric cars," Nov. 1), a change we need to make as quickly as possible. One major obstacle is the difficulty of charging an EV without a private garage. I was the happy owner of an all-electric Chevy Bolt for several years. Fun to drive, with plenty of range to drive anywhere in or near the Twin Cities and charge overnight in my garage. When I moved to an apartment, it was no longer feasible. No fast chargers were anywhere nearby, and the charging station at Macalester (3 miles away) was frequently in use or out of order. Sadly, my husband and I now have just one car, a gas-burning SUV.

What are St. Paul and Minneapolis doing to encourage more fast-charging stations in or near all the new apartment buildings? Or to expand EV car-sharing services? Higher density living is an admirable goal, but we're not going to be able to use buses, bikes and sidewalks for all our needs. An electric vehicle is only useful if it's charged!