Readers Write (Dec. 30): Corporate responsibility, home condemnation, money in politics, Southwest LRT, holiday displays

With all the negative articles about corporate greed and disproportionate wages for workers, I felt compelled to speak about my employer. See, he does not feel the need to have a pat on the back or to be put on a pedestal. It is his innate personality — how he has always lived his entire life.

I personally have known him for almost 20 years. We design and install solar energy here in the metro area and beyond. Giving renewable energy to people in our communities and reducing the strain on the grid is something as a company and as employees that we live for. But this man goes way beyond that. He pays us much more than the average wage, while he lives in a very modest but comfortable home. He is not materialistic by any stretch of imagination. He will donate solar panels to nonprofits, and sometimes labor. For other small companies and individuals struggling, he will work out the pricing to fit their budgets.

We are a for-profit company and believe in free enterprise, but we are balanced and have a mission. He sets an example to live by. Just recently, he helped a total stranger who has been diagnosed with MS and could not pay his bills, could not work anymore and was almost living on the street.

Thanks, Jon, and thanks to all of our clients for helping the planet.

The story of Carl Eide and his 1890 house, hardly older than my own in Minneapolis ("Man, 82, and house, 124, lose fight with city," Dec. 26) broke my heart. Nearly seven years ago, my brother died in a fire that burned his house beyond restoration not far from Eide's home. I was responsible for his estate and prepared to sell the land on which the home stood to settle his estate, only to be told by St. Louis Park officials that I must raze the intact, unattached garage on the land. After no good reason for this slavish adherence to the rules could be offered, we were allowed to list the land, where my brother's home was rebuilt and the garage remains. At no point during these long negotiations was even the slightest expression of remorse for my grief offered. I have not set foot nor spent a dime in St. Louis Park since. Bulldozing Eide's house seems as wasteful as destroying the garage I successfully saved six years ago. I hope for him the same success.

As we approach a new year, perhaps we can embrace it with a more honest understanding of the realities of our two main political parties. Accepted wisdom has the Democrats as the party of the average American and the Republicans as the party of the rich.

The Associated Press, using data from the Center for Responsive Politics, tells us that among the 183 groups that wrote checks of $100,000 or more during the 2014 midterms, Dems had a 3-to-1 cash advantage. For the 2014 campaign, donors who gave more than $1 million sent roughly 60 cents of every dollar to liberal groups. Among the 10 biggest donors, Democrats outspent Republicans by almost 3 to 1.

It is long since time that voters recognized the not-so-new reality: Democrats spend more money to influence politics than do Republicans.

Regrettably, Democrats' fundings support teachers unions at the expense of underprivileged children; environmental extremists at the expense of common-sense guidelines for the protection of our environment, and too many of our enemies at the expense of our historical allies.

We can't advance our national dialogue until we accept our political realities.

A recent commentary ("Lawsuit over light-rail tunnel not worth the risks," Dec. 27) says that if the Southwest light-rail line's proposed 21st Street station is not built, it would deny "access to thousands of working families." This is clearly disingenuous, if not an intentional fiction. The Metropolitan Council projects that by 2030 this proposed station would be used by about 1,600 riders per day (perhaps optimistic, considering the geography). That's 800 round-trip commuters, not "thousands." I'm not opposed to a 21st Street (or any other) station, but I would hope Southwest light-rail promoters could be truthful in making their arguments about this $1.7 billion project.

Joe Knaeble's commentary made me think ("Turn out the lights," Dec. 28). His point that elaborate displays of Christmas lights contribute to environmental damage has occurred to me before, and I'm sure to others, but then there's the whole concern of benefits compared to costs. We are emotional beings, and most of us believe in God.

Christmas and Christmas lights contrast the harshness of winter. It can even relieve the damage of so-called cabin fever. That's one reason we keep the lights on in January.

Of course, Christmas can be very challenging for people who are alone. Yet that thought brings us to an important consideration. During a previous year, the display in question even attracted a woman who then met the property owner, fell in love and became his wife. How do we measure that?

• • •

As you are taking down your outside Christmas decorations this season, please notice if you have covered your house numbers with a wreath or a snowman. Delivery people like me — and emergency responders — need to be able to see those numbers. Do you want to add to the time it takes for a paramedic to locate your house?