Readers Write (June 13): Guthrie Theater's accessibility, the Legislature, addressing problems together, Center for New Americans, Southwest LRT, Title IX, Cologne's solar project

I love going to the Guthrie Theater! Ever since my mother took me to "Uncle Vanya" in 1969, the theater experience has been magical and exciting for me. The Vineland Place spot was pretty, but the location on the river is spectacular. It's too bad, though, that so many of the folks who helped the Guthrie become established with their purchase of season tickets cannot access the new theater.

When I have gotten play tickets and shared them with my mother, she remarks, "My contemporaries could never do this." She's referring to the dark hallways, long escalators and uneven floors. Of course, the best part of the building is the cantilevered deck, with its breathtaking views. Unfortunately, the only way to get to it is to walk up or down an incline. And that leaves out people with balance problems, and some of those with walkers.

The new building, which opened in 2006, sometimes feels like a slap in the face to those who supported the Guthrie from the beginning, but who can no longer attend the plays.

I'm wondering if anyone noticed our recent government shutdown. Citizens were blocked from participating in public-policy decisionmaking; we couldn't even witness how decisions were made. The most important part of our government was banished: The People.

When our elected officials don't get the job done, we don't have a "special session"; we have a secret session. These secret sessions violate every tenet of Minnesota's open-meeting laws: no public input, no media coverage … no transparency. That's a government shutdown, at least a shutdown of our government as we know it. Or perhaps a "government breakdown."

Call it what you want, but call it wrong. Violating open-meeting laws, abolishing citizen boards, ignoring citizen recommendations and publicly demeaning citizens who participate in the process is becoming all too common. If one elected official wants to operate in the dark, that is one too many.

Want a reason to be pessimistic about our chances of weathering climate change? Look no further than the June 3 article "Trash collection stirs mini-revolt." It seems that City Council members in Bloomington have bowed to pressure from their constituents to rethink their progressive plan to make garbage collection more efficient.

I can empathize: Several years ago, I thought I could convince the neighbors on our block to agree on one trash hauler. A couple of homeowners agreed, but most wanted to stick with their providers. "I like my hauler," was the refrain, as if they enjoyed having their haulers over for dinner or chatting with them above the racket on collection day.

If we can't even agree on something as simple as garbage consolidation, a move that would reduce noise pollution, air pollution, and wear and tear on our streets and alleys, God help us with the big stuff.

Congratulations to the Center for New Americans and all of the lawyers and others who worked so hard on Moones Mellouli's case ("New U law center wins case for deported man," June 10). This shows that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement rulings are often arbitrary and plain absurd.

The best news, hopefully, is that socks won't be considered drug paraphernalia anymore. In any case, I am going to take a chance and retrieve mine from the trash before it gets picked up.

What archconservatives like Kim Crockett don't understand ("Southwest LRT: It's not too late to back away," June 9) is that a transportation system has to have lots of options, not just one or two. Light-rail transit will be an affordable option for those who can't afford a car. Sure, there may be long walks or a bus on either or both ends, but it will be cheaper than owning a car. It will be the best possible way for low-income people from north Minneapolis to get to jobs in the southwest suburbs.

I think the Southwest line is a good deal for the metro area at twice the price — though engineers have identified possible cuts. Let's also remember that freeways are subsidized, too — at nearly twice the rate of light-rail systems — and that they move fewer people per mile per dollar, so an LRT system is a good value.

Just population growth alone makes Southwest LRT a necessity. I think there should be some type of ongoing tax to fund the construction of two lines at the same time. We have to get this system up and running.

The elephant in the locker room in this debate about Title IX and funding for sports ("Feds weigh state of play," June 11) is football. It wields the Big Money stick. Other sports produce revenue, but that income is incidental compared with what is generated by football.

If Title IX has a fatal flaw, it is that women don't play football. Lawmakers didn't consider this when they wrote the legislation. With a roster of more than 100 players, football squeezes out other sports, pushing them off campus and limiting their funding. If any equity is to be found here, it is that male and female athletes in all other sports are equally shortchanged.

Too much of the revenue produced by football goes right back to football in the form of scholarships, salaries, recruiting and elaborate facilities. It is the unchecked growth of one organ of the athletic department at the expense of all others. It is the ideology of a cancer cell.

Savings of $40,000 a year over 25 years? All solar? Really? ("Cologne to be first city in state to go all-solar," June 12.) This is not to bash alternative forms of energy, but let's get a couple of things straight. Cologne is not going "all-solar," not when it will rely on the grid when El Sol remains hidden behind the inevitable cloud deck, and $1.1 million over a 25-year period is not a "nice chunk of change" — not until we know how much the cost of installing the "solar garden" is and what percent of the overall electrical spend that represents.

Forty thousand a year might pay for half a city administrator, one who no doubt will have to be hired to manage this alternative source of energy. Unless, of course, the $40,000 a year is in fact a net number, net of all of the incremental costs of building, managing, maintaining and depreciating the new equipment.