Readers Write (March 20): North Minneapolis, the urban/rural divide, Donald Trump

The March 13 article about Minneapolis City Council Member Blong Yang's "balancing act" didn't touch on the issues or their source. A light crowd showed up at Yang's recent public-safety forum at North Commons Gym. The e-mail invitation to his constituents went out at 3:45 the day before. The forum was thus poorly attended, leaving Yang and his constituents greatly outnumbered by hard-line "police accountability watchdogs." What's more, the first 40 minutes was "a day in the life of" by his panel of police, while community members were given two minutes per "discussion." The police were unable to speak with substance to any issues — for instance, the role of police union leader Robert Kroll or the rampant problem of domestic violence coupled with a more than 50 percent drop (in 2012-13) in 911 calls by victims.

Police coaching basketball is great and "day in the life" presentations are informative, but if you are going to hold a forum on safety, give us time to arrange our calendars and be present. If you hold a police-accountability gathering, get panelists who can speak to the issues. When the police understand poverty, drug addiction and domestic violence, from Kroll down, then we can allow them to serve us in those areas. Until then, their budget should be diverted to people who can serve us.

After reading all three opinions on the front page of the March 13 Opinion Exchange section, it appears that the theme de jour is the battle between urban and rural interests. Lori Sturdevant comes right out and says so in her comments about the clean-water battle taking place at the State Capitol between farmers and metro-area environmentalists. Peter Leschak talks about Iron Range mining interests vs. metro tourism and (again) clean-water activists. Finally, D.J. Tice brings up how our neighbors in Wisconsin are currently in the throes of that state's governor, Scott Walker, and his brand of resentfulness against so-called "urban elites in Madison and Milwaukee" as well as educators in the public school systems of that state.

In all three cases, rural/outstate interests are battling not really against metro areas but against their own decline. As Leschak points out, migration from farming and mining areas is many decades in the making. Wage growth in these sectors is nonexistent. Billions of dollars have been spent to mitigate the effects of these changes, but to very little effect. The chopstick factory is merely a memory of a goofy dream.

More disturbing is the effort in Wisconsin to bring everyone down to the lowest level. Middle-class teachers' pay and benefits are cut to fund tax breaks for the already extremely wealthy, in the hopes they will use that extra cash to fund job growth. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. Minnesota, after increasing tax rates for the wealthiest citizens, has seen job growth that far outpaces that in Wisconsin.

Perhaps voters in both states need to see that a state, like any other organization, needs to put its resources behind its growth sectors. In Minnesota, we have done that by making a livable urban area in the Twin Cities. We are spending on the amenities that actually attract highly educated, high-potential individuals, especially the younger demographic. To paraphrase the late Hubert Humphrey, "otherwise we would be a cold Omaha."

• • •

Will they think about it when he wins? Probably not. Will they think of it a month or two after his inauguration? Maybe so.

• • •

Tice's paean to Walker omitted two of the governor's longer-lasting "impacts."

One is the erosion of public trust in Wisconsin governance. Walker opened the door to corruption on a scale not witnessed in the state in recent memory. In fact, Walker himself came under criminal investigation twice, in probes that were ultimately quashed by his allies in the Legislature and on the state Supreme Court.

Second, as Walker was captured admitting on camera to his billionaire donor Diane Hendricks, he has pursued a "divide and conquer" strategy toward the electorate that to this day bitterly sets neighbors, co-workers and family members against one another.

The March 13 front-page article concerning why people like Trump was very good. My support of Trump stems from my belief that he stands for everything just the opposite of Hillary Clinton. Examples:

• Clinton lies. Trump tells it like it is.

• Clinton will sell out for a buck in her pocket. Trump needs no money.

• Clinton believes following laws/rules are for everyone but her. Trump will follow the law.

• Clinton will penalize companies that exit the U.S., thus driving them further away. Trump will seek to bring them back.

• Clinton has never negotiated anything significant. Trump has made big deals with people around the world.

• Clinton has never had to manage a budget. Trump has managed billions.

• Clinton will pass the buck. The buck will stop with Trump.

• And finally, I would follow Trump into battle knowing he would stay the course. Should the battle get rough, Clinton would cut a deal for herself and throw me under the bus.

• • •

The problem with Donald taking his CEO mentality to the White House is simple — businesses usually focus on making one or two products or services, and even multidisciplinary/diverse companies (such as Trump's) still have synergies within the products or business lines of their choosing. Our federal government has too many nondiverse products and services that it should and must provide to its constituents. Donald's prior experience as CEO, including a few of his CEO-led companies that filed bankruptcies, aptly shows that even he cannot always succeed regardless of his personality and business acumen. We simply cannot take the gamble that Donald will save and successfully operate and manage the entire government like he can as the CEO of his companies.