Readers Write (May 1): Recycling, preventing extremism, Third Congressional District, job distribution, synthetic turf

In reference to the April 24 "Data Drop" article ("What we're throwing away, but could be recycling"), just a suggestion: My family, like so many others across Minnesota, recycles avidly. And we would be willing to recycle even more but for one issue— bin capacity.

Our recycling, as well as that of every other house in the neighborhood regardless of sanitation company, is limited by pickup every other week. By the end of Week 1, our 96-gallon recycling bin is full. We have to get quite creative by Week 2, in order to fit another week's worth of recycling into the bin. In the name of creativity, our daughters used to enjoy jumping into the can to compress everything for us in prep for Week 2. But, alas, kids grow up and it's no longer cool to be the family can crusher.

We're not alone in running out of room in our recycling bin. Our family produces far less garbage than we do recycling. It's rewarding to see the trash bin one-third full and the recycling bin overflowing. However, such shortage of space can sometimes result in the worst possible outcome: throwing a bag of recycling into the garbage bin. I know — you are probably cringing at the thought of this, just like I do when it happens.

So, yes, of course, we can all recycle more. But before I have to resort to going door-to-door to find neighborhood can-crushers, couldn't we move to weekly recycling pickup?

The April 24 editorial ("A beautiful goal, barely begun") missed the point in a number of ways. The basic premise is that government is inadequately funding the needs of our local Somali population. Once again, another demand for endless sums of money is made by the Star Tribune Editorial Board. The text "Countering extremism" is splashed across the photo and given as the purpose. Really? If that is the new benchmark, we've entered into a new era of branding. However, the article's focus is no surprise, as we all know that government "investment" is the answer to all our social disparities.

Somalis started coming to Minnesota in the early 1990s due to a civil war. Only now we are seeing a funding problem? Where is the support from the Lutheran Social Service, the Catholic Charities and World Relief Minnesota? After all, they sponsored the immigration from Somalia via Kenya. With just more than 30,000 now here, do they default to become wards of the taxpayers? Once again, we see the painful aspects of assimilation from a very different culture. It is fine and proper to hold onto your roots, but you must also embrace the opportunities found in your new home. Yes, transition can be challenging. But the Editorial Board would have us believe that the beautiful goal has barely begun, even after 20-plus years. So, my question is twofold: How long will it take for the "goal" to be realized, and what is the next group of immigrants that will need adequate funding?

Lori Sturdevant's April 24 column ("In state's Third District, things have changed") got me thinking about the downside of the changes when Republicans and Democrats get their bipartisan mojos working. After all, bipartisanship brought us decades of failed trickle-down economics, NAFTA, outsourced jobs, Glass-Steagall repeal, unregulated derivatives, the Great Recession, the bankruptcy bill, welfare reform, No Child Left Behind, the Iraq war and all the gaps — you know, the ones we talk about in income, wealth, education, housing, food, mental and physical health, and opportunity. The people on the short end of these gaps spend their time overwrought with these burdens and wish they could devote more time to planning for a better life for themselves and their children. Meanwhile, the root causes of many of our problems — poverty; regressive, unfair taxes; racism; bigotry — and an underfunded and understaffed social-welfare system that is more a cruel joke than a safety net continue on.

Was I the only one struck by the irony of the two articles in the April 21 Business section? Columnist Lee Schafer talked about the dismal employment expectations of the folks on the Iron Range, and the other article examined some companies' difficulty finding enough workers, especially outstate. According to economic theory, people will go to where the jobs are. Yet for some reason that doesn't seem to be happening here. Perhaps the pay still isn't good enough to make people move. Or perhaps they would move but can't sell their house. Or maybe people simply can't give up a lifestyle they've always enjoyed despite the financial burden. Apparently there's a lot that economists don't understand. In any event, it's a very difficult issue, yet it would appear that the folks up north are going to have to make some very hard decisions with no good options.

The larger lesson here is that this scene is playing out all across the country and almost exclusively with people who once were solidly middle-class. Yet another sad reason for the angry mood in this year's election?

I wish our neighbors on the Range the best of luck with this conundrum.

Readers should know that the Edina parents fighting the installation of synthetic turf fields are not alone ("Edina weighs health risks of sports turf," April 24). Parent groups in both Minneapolis and Duluth have led efforts to replace playground infill made from waste tires with nontoxic alternatives.

The Environmental Protection Agency has promoted and funded reuse of waste tires in a decades-long effort to reduce hazardous stockpiles of waste tires nationwide. The tires become "rubber mulch" to cushion playgrounds and "crumb rubber" to cushion synthetic turf fields. But the EPA didn't solve the problem of waste tires — it just relocated it to playgrounds and athletic fields nationwide.

Even the EPA now says more study is needed to determine the health impacts.

Considering the toxic exposures already sustained by kids in the wider world, schools should take steps to ensure that they are providing a nontoxic environment for students.

• • •

Did anyone notice the incongruent placement of the ad for turf fertilizers and weed killers below the article about the uproar over synthetic turf? How many people complaining about the rubber turf put herbicides on the lawns where their children and pets play?