Readers write for Tuesday, March 1

March 1, 2011 at 12:33AM
Illustration by Bruce Bjerva
Illustration by Bruce Bjerva (Susan Hogan — Star Tribune/The Minnesota Star Tribune)

PUBLIC BROADCASTING

As things stand, is funding warranted?

U.S. Rep. Betty McCollum laments proposals to cut government subsidies to public radio and television ("We get smart with public broadcasting," Feb. 28). She cites especially the unbiased news and cultural programming that they provide.

These features (news and cultural programming) may be worthwhile.

In the past decade, however, much of public broadcasting's programming has been changed and has become essentially the same as that available from commercial stations.

There's cooking, travel, science, financial advice, do-it-yourself and pop psychology programming. Public radio's talk-show programming (which is largely not unbiased) is also redundant with options found on commercial radio.

The seeming absence of advertising is nice, but public television is certainly moving toward "commercials."

The extended recognition of a show's sponsor often exceeds the 15 to 30 seconds that some commercial advertisers deem long enough.

Also, the "previews" that take up five minutes or more between shows are tiresome and inconsistent with "commercial-free" programming.

McCollum fears a "dumb" decision. A decision with that attribute was made when public broadcasting started deviating from its roots.

RICHARD S. JOHNSON, SHOREVIEW

• • •

McCollum, D-Minn., frames the debate in ideological terms -- defending noble expenditures against those evil, mean-spirited Republicans.

The real issue isn't whether one likes or dislikes PBS or agrees or disagrees with her assertion that it is unbiased.

In this era of budgetary crisis, when viewers can choose from among hundreds of television channels and a multitude of Internet sites, is government support for radio and television really the best use of tax dollars?

Every program has a constituency that argues for ever-higher funding levels. Leaders need to prioritize, and sometimes that means looking beyond the next election and saying no.

DAVID BRENTZ, ARDEN HILLS

VOLUNTEERS

They can fill gaps, but they need support

The Star Tribune has noted a recent trend of volunteers taking over roles that previously were occupied by paid employees ("Volunteers help fill holes that budget cuts left in cities' staffs," Feb. 28).

While this trend is in some ways laudable, it may not always be manageable.

One of the biggest mistakes people often make in working with volunteers is assuming that they're free and easy to add to an organization. If they are in vital roles, as is often the case, it is essential that they be properly trained, supported and held accountable.

This generally requires a paid professional volunteer manager. Without such infrastructure it is likely going to be a frustrating experience for all involved.

We are blessed with a great resource to support organizations interested in engaging and supporting volunteers.

Hands On Twin Cities offers training, resources and networking opportunities that equip agencies to engage volunteers in meaningful service. It is also the go-to place to find volunteer opportunities. See .

DAN JOHNSON, CRYSTAL

STEVE LAMPI

Brooklyn Park's late mayor will be missed

Steve Lampi was taken from us way too soon ("Brooklyn Park loses its mayor to cancer," Feb. 28). I hate that I didn't even know that he was sick until it was too late.

Mayor Lampi touched me with his heartfelt speech at the Brooklyn Park rally against racism only 17 months ago.

He talked about how he was committed to reaching out and embracing the rich diversity in our Brooklyn Park community.

He was one of those rare people you only had to meet once, and he would remember you and go out of his way to say "hi" whenever your paths would cross again.

I hope he knew how many lives he touched and just how much his service to our community was appreciated.

LINDA FREEMON, BROOKLYN PARK

Vikings, Casino

Projects should mean jobs for Minnesotans

I think we all know that there will eventually be a new Vikings stadium, and I don't really care one way or the other about a casino on Block E, but I do care about where all the jobs will come from and the impact on the Minnesota economy that can come with building both.

If we taxpayers are going to foot the bill for a new stadium, we should get more for our buck than just the economic benefits of eight home games a year.

The project should be contingent on the use of Minnesota-based companies in every phase of the planning, building and operation. We have the experienced architectural firms, construction companies, subcontractors, sign companies and equipment dealers necessary to handle the job right here at home.

There is no reason to send our dollars out of the state for any part of a Minnesota Vikings stadium.

As for the downtown casino?

If we're going to mess with the American Indian compacts and amend the state constitution to allow this private venture, then a Minnesota-based contingency should apply in this case as well.

And if we want this to truly be a boon to our state economy, we should make sure that everyone gets a chance to compete for these jobs, not just the unions.

Now that would be a stimulus package!

KATHY KAUFMAN, GOLDEN VALLEY

• • •

Every time I drive by the Arden Hills site being proposed for a Vikings stadium, I see the hills in the background and think "ski area." Snowboarding and skiing are huge sports, and the closest resorts are an hour away. If a stadium doesn't pan out, why not put those hills to good use?

JODEE MOLITOR, COON RAPIDS

about the writer

about the writer