Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

As someone who has had to deal with housing insecurity and homelessness for over a dozen years, I see very little broad and sustained success, at any government level, to substantially reduce the homelessness of the unhoused population of Hennepin County, let alone the state. Has the editorial writer of "Find safe alternatives for the homeless" (Oct. 14) questioned the politicians of our state at all levels to find out why, even though we have billions of dollars in budget surplus in our state, in addition to federal aid, we still have not made a substantial dent in reducing homelessness in Minnesota? Despite the fact that placing unhoused people temporarily into hotel/motel rooms until they've received permanent housing has proved successful here and elsewhere, Hennepin County abruptly shut down that solution last winter. Not only has the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated that homeless encampments should not be moved or broken up if residents have nowhere else to go, the Star Tribune has previously reported on numerous occasions that unhoused people prefer encampments or tents to the documented chaos of traditional congregate shelters.

Until editorial writers actually speak with the victims of the "homeless industrial complex," as we like to call it, they have no right to judge or presume they know what the unhoused population wants or needs from them.

Brian Gooley, Hennepin County

In many cities, property owners are assessed a fee when an adjacent road is repaired ("After pushback, some cities rethink street fees," Oct. 24). This can result in thousands of dollars in unexpected debt. It's unfair for several reasons, including the fact that most people who use the road are not the ones being assessed.

Alternatives, such as a yearly tax on all properties, based on their value, make for a more predictable financial situation. But this can be unfair to people who recently paid a large assessment. One way around this is to temporarily exempt from the new tax properties that have been recently assessed. It could work like this: For a period of 10 years after a property is assessed, it would be exempt from the new tax, but only up to the amount of the assessment.

The exemption would end when the total amount exempted equaled the assessment. So, if people had an assessment for $500 last year, they could be exempt from the tax for nine years. But if the new tax is $100/year, after five years they will have saved $500, and their exemption would end.

Scott Nation, Minneapolis

Minnesota's renewable energy leadership puts us on the map, with our rural communities taking center stage. Last year, renewable energy accounted for 28% of the state's electricity generation, and the state saw fewer energy imports than ever before. Renewable energy is reducing energy costs and helping Minnesotans reach energy independence. For communities like LeRoy, clean energy investments can positively impact our day-to-day lives.

EDP Renewables' (EDPR NA) Prairie Star Wind Farm in LeRoy illustrates how clean energy can benefit small towns like ours. The project has spurred economic growth in Mower County through indirect investments. More than $15 million has been spent in communities within 50 miles of the project, supporting local businesses like restaurants and shops. With rising costs at every twist and turn, clean energy projects help keep funds in our pockets.

Rural electric cooperatives across the state are embracing clean energy to manage rising energy costs. With approximately one-third of Minnesotans getting their electricity from a rural electric cooperative, clean energy will significantly reduce high costs and ensure energy efficiency. Increased efficiency and clean energy development will secure Minnesota's future in reliability and stability.

Craig Wiste, LeRoy, Minn.

The writer is Prairie Star Wind Farm Operations Manager.

•••

Minnesota counties are being invaded! Each year, our former family farm lands, clean and abundant freshwater sources, and the air we breathe are increasingly degraded and polluted. Minnesota has over 1,300 CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations). Do we really want thousands of hogs living next to us? Tens of thousands of cows? Uncounted thousands of poultry? Yet our community leaders appear oblivious to these public concerns as they rubber stamp their approval for each new project that is proposed. Are we, the public, complicit in ignoring the environmental and health problems posed by these giant farms?

What does remaining oblivious and complicit to the costs we all bear as a result of their presence do? Many of us live within important watersheds, where CAFOs "gift" us with manure overload. When held in manure lagoons, those lagoons are subject to the increasingly violent storms that create flooding and overflow. When applied to crops as fertilizer, livestock wastes such as ammonia, nitrates, antibiotics, hormones, pharmaceuticals, pathogens, parasites, viruses and bacteria leach into the soils, water tables and runoff pollute our drinking water. A shocking 63% of county water facilities in the area of CAFOs indicated increasing contamination; that contamination causes serious human illnesses.

Many words have been written about the pending dangers to our environment from large-scale agriculture and fossil fuels. It is time to open our eyes and minds, start acting, and organize to protect our rural communities and create a more sustainable world.

Donna L. Chollett, Morris, Minn.

Thursday's Star Tribune article about Rush City, Minn., authorities demanding that a couple paint over a mural they commissioned for the side of a building that they own ("City, couple at odds over racially inclusive mural," Nov. 3) is eerily reminiscent of the climax of the 1998 movie "Pleasantville," starring Tobey Maguire and Reese Witherspoon.

"Pleasantville" depicts a predominantly white Mayberry R.F.D.-like town at the moment it meets challenges and promises of a racially and culturally diverse world. The movie culminates in a trial scene that determines the fate of a large mural painted on a building in the center of town, a mural depicting the darker aspects of the town's homogeneity alongside the brighter possibilities of a more heterogeneous future.

The Rush City mural is similar to the Pleasantville mural in several ways: It is not sanctioned by local authorities; it depicts the promise of harmony that accompanies a democratic and colorfully vibrant world; and it is a heartfelt response to threatening autocratic mind-sets that currently plague our country's — and the world's — cultural and political landscapes.