Readers write for March 10, 2010

Thank you for pointing out the hypocrisy in the U's plans to develop a "sustainable" community at its UMore Park near Rosemount instead of addressing urban decline in its back yard ("Key to U housing: Location, location," March 5). However, you are much too easy on the U.

Not only is the conversion of prime farmland at UMore Park into a gravel pit and a "sustainable" community not vital to the U's goals, but it's contradictory to the U's purported goal of modeling sustainability. True sustainability requires protection of farmland.

Most of the research into sustainable community design that is slated to be done at UMore could be done as well or better in existing urban communities, where there is an urgent need for it. The idea of a "sustainable" community that integrates course work and research has been sold to well-intentioned faculty and students as a way of greenwashing an otherwise highly unsustainable activity: mining for gravel.

My biggest fear is that the gravel mining, which is slated to start soon, will happen, but that in 10 or 20 years when the gravel is gone, our economy will have changed so much that building the community will no longer be viable. Then we will have lost much and gained nothing ... except for gravel. But you can't eat gravel.

LOIS BRAUN, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCHER,

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

If my daughter were diagnosed with an eating disorder, how might I feel about having the Emily Program ("Orono delays decision on disorder clinic," March 9) housed right down the street? How might I feel about attempts to stop it from moving in?

If my daughter were in need of treatment for eating disorder, I would delight in having the Emily Program down the street. Regardless, the most neighborly show of compassion is to lend support for the project's noble cause. The Hill School building suits the need, and the need is real.

JUDY BROWN HODDER, ORONO

Hooray for Don Samuels, Chandra Baker and Sondra Samuels for having the courage, integrity and independence to speak out against Education Minnesota and against the grip on education it maintains to the detriment of our kids and schools ("As the teachers union digs in, it's students who suffer," March 9).

Education Minnesota could have been a useful force if it had functioned transparently for what it is -- a union, not an advocacy group. Its grip and ideology have been impediments to change, to improvement and, most important, to quality and accountability in our schools for decades, even in predominantly white neighborhoods.

Education Minnesota is a union that "taxes" its own members to collect compulsory dues, which it uses to fund political campaigns (PACs). Candidates who receive the union's money support its protectionist agenda in order to keep their jobs. Students, families and taxpayers are completely out of the loop. If you want improved education, support no candidate who takes campaign funds from Education Minnesota.

People never learn. If one investment pays a much higher interest rate than competing investments do, it is probably a Ponzi scheme ("12 years in prison for $7M Ponzi scheme that included parents," March 6). Those who fall prey are victims of their own greed.

FRANK JONDAL, OAKDALE

I support your editorial on the clothing tax ("Sales tax on clothes is a worthy proposal," March 5) because I understand the great financial losses experienced this year by our schools and the importance of finding a way to pay them back. Adding a sales tax to clothing is a good option. Minnesota needs to find a way out of this deficit, and making more cuts to important programs is not the way to go about it.

I have traveled outside Minnesota -- one of only four states without a sales tax on clothes -- throughout my life, and I'm certain that I have made multiple purchases on clothing that had an added tax. As a graduate student working hard to make ends meet, I appreciate any savings that come my way, but when looking at the financial deficit of our state and the need for schools to get the funding they deserve, I will welcome a tax on clothing purchases.

MOLLY WADSWORTH, EDINA