Readers write for Monday, Dec. 6, 2010

The Nov. 30 story "Light-rail underlines intersections" noted that light-rail planning in St. Paul is causing tensions as neighborhoods struggle with unanswered questions. As a resident of St. Louis Park, which is considering freight-rail reroutes to accommodate a probable Southwest light-rail route, I understand their concerns.

Balancing the tangible fears of neighbors against the potential promise of new development can be difficult, even tense, but it is important work. Democratic societies demand compromise, but concessions should be the result of conversations across a table.

I applaud these St. Paul residents for their efforts to keep their discussions productive and hope that St. Louis Park can follow in their footsteps when light-rail transit planning comes to our side of the Twin Cities.

MATT FLORY, ST. LOUIS PARK

• • •

Students for Transit Equality is a recently formed group of University of Minnesota School of Social Work students who are concerned about racial and economic inequalities in Twin Cities transit and transit planning.

The purpose of this information campaign is to draw community awareness and publicity to the lack of any bus shelter at the bus stop at 7th Street and Nicollet Avenue. This bus stop is primarily used by buses bound for north Minneapolis, Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center. Despite being the most-used bus stop regionwide, this stop has no shelter or any other amenities. Meanwhile, bus stops on the rapid-transit routes of Marquette and 2nd Avenues, serving primarily suburban commuters, are equipped with heated and lit shelters, real-time arrival displays and large transit maps.

While time for input to this plan is upon us, little community awareness or information has been provided by the city. In response, our group is raising awareness about the issue and about the need for community input and pressure. An open house will be held from 4 to 6 p.m. Dec. 13 at the Minneapolis Central Library, where community members can provide input on the planning of this transit spine and keep the city accountable for providing equal transit amenities.

It is important to build community awareness and to have community stakeholders present at this meeting in order to put pressure on the city to follow through with its commitments.

PETER CALDWELL, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

Metro Transit's new cell phone policy is very clear, stating that "all cell phones and personal electronic devices must be turned off and stowed away from drivers while operating a bus or train." The argument coming from the Amalgamated Transit Union 1005 that the new rule is too strict and violates the union's contract is unreasonable ("Transit union challenges new policy on cell phones," Nov. 28).

The new policy was created in order to send a strong message to the operators, and it seems to be working. If drivers or operators want to use electronic devices, they picked the wrong job.

RACHEL BOELTER, BLOOMINGTON

Both George Will's Nov. 28 column about video games ("There's a moral threat to youths of America!") and the Dec. 2 counterpoint from Dick Bernard ("Vicarious violence a threat? Yes.") overlooked one important feature: The pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court that may alter the terrain, for better or worse, has Minnesota roots.

The case, Schwarzenegger vs. Entertainment Merchants of America, questions whether states may forbid the furnishing of violent video games to minors. While stemming from California, the land of videos, the litigation has a connection to Minnesota, where a federal judge in 2006 struck down a state law banning sale or rental to minors. Judge James Rosenbaum joined colleagues in about a dozen other jurisdictions with similar measures in ruling that the prohibition enacted by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty violates the First Amendment rights of freedom of expression of the video purveyors, not to mention those of prospective viewers.

The judge found that there was "no showing whatsoever that video games, in the absence of other violent media, caused even the slightest injury to children." Without such evidence, he declared that the law "unconstitutionally impinges" on the First Amendment. In a harsh conclusion, he questioned whether the Legislature, in passing the law, was "blind to its constitutional flaws."

Whether video violence is too innocuous to merit legislation, as columnist Will professes, or a "threat," as educator Bernard feels, there may be more effective -- and lawful -- ways to combat it than through legislation that infringes on precious freedoms.