Readers write for July 13, 2010

I am the DFL district chair of Senate District 50, which encompasses some 90,000 people in Columbia Heights, Fridley, New Brighton, Arden Hills, St. Anthony and Shoreview. I am also a sportsman. I have hunted and fished my whole life.

Neither I nor any one else involved in the endorsement process is against Sen. Satveer Chaudhary for his support of hunting or fishing ("Senator loses attempt to regain endorsement," July 12).

We are hardworking people. We pay our taxes. We want the best for our children and families, and we care about our neighbors. We know we are all better off when we are all better off. I sign off my e-mail reminding people of that.

We also have the right to honest representation. We did not revoke our state senator's endorsement lightly. The Fish Lake matter was not about the lake or conservation, nor was it intended to be hostile to our friends up north, whom we treasure. It was not because Chaudhary was for or against any issue. It was because of how he did what he did. My colleagues think that when we deal with one another, we need to be forthright. We need to tell all, not half, of the truth. Most on the committee weren't mad, but they were hurt. It is not easy to be betrayed by a friend or someone you campaigned for.

One should not criticize the Star Tribune or its reporters; they did their job and published the truth.

One should use independent judgment and ask: Would you teach your children to do what Chaudhary did here?

There is no smear campaign by me, nor the committee, nor the paper. This gentleman did this all to himself.

As Minnesotans, we have long prided ourselves on doing the right thing for our elders' families by helping people grow old in their own homes and communities but also stepping in to ensure the availability of high-quality care facilities and services when family caregiving is no longer feasible or available. Government has played an important role in this shared responsibility by providing funding, primarily via the state's medical assistance program, not only for home- and community-based services, but also for a large portion of the care provided in nursing homes across the state.

As Charles Schrader's poignant commentary "Raw economics at the nursing home" (July 9) points out, government reimbursement is no longer enough to keep many nursing homes viable. Statewide, 56 facilities have closed over the past decade, and those that remain open are considerably smaller than they were. According to the Department of Human Services, about 800 nursing-home beds are taken out of service every year, and there's no slowing of that trend in sight. Some of this change is good -- we will need fewer nursing homes if we put in place more services to keep individuals at home -- but in light of the dramatic growth in our senior population, it is vital that we protect Minnesota's long-term-care safety net. Places like the Ashton Care Center -- the Pipestone, Minn., facility about which Schrader wrote -- are a key part of that.

While we agree with Schrader that government alone cannot shoulder all of the responsibility for the care seniors will need, funding for these essential community services has been frozen or cut in recent years and must be a priority for our next governor and Legislature. Not only will we be meeting the needs of seniors, but we'll be saving jobs in our rural communities as well.

We, too, salute the Ashton staff and hope the painful decision to close will help to ignite personal action as well as public investment.

GAYLE KVENVOLD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AGING SERVICES OF MINNESOTA, ST. PAUL

JOHN MULKERN, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

The July 2 story "Curses, milfoil again" stated that milfoil has turned out to be "valuable habitat for fish." In addition, the story stated that milfoil is also "proven" to help settle sediments and clear the water.

As executive director of the Lake Minnetonka Association, and as a consultant who manages lakes around the country, I find these statements to be misleading. Milfoil is bad in many ways.

The story calls the Department of Natural Resources' public stance on milfoil an "ironic accommodation" as the DNR seeks to stem the spread, yet limit its control. To further emphasize this irony, "Who's looking after the threatened" (July 6) quotes a DNR representative who includes milfoil as a factor in "taking their toll on the state's most vulnerable flora and fauna." With stories like this, one may wonder: Is milfoil good or bad?

Milfoil management is sometimes complicated and many times carries emotional elements. It can be controlled and managed in a manner that is protective and restorative.

DICK OSGOOD, SHOREWOOD