Readers Write: Minneapolis Gaza resolution, housing/parking, End-of-Life Options Act, Dean Phillips

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

•••

What is easier for each of us individuals — decrying those we think are truly evil, or setting about to improve the well-being of our own citizenry? We, as human beings, would be better off tackling unfinished business in our immediate world, difficult as it is. Before we look into the far regions of the land of Israel, its troubled and sought-after territory, we must, as Voltaire once suggested, “cultivate our own gardens.”

It is not fruitful for our Minneapolis City Council, our universities or our citizenry to suggest that we have the answers to the Hamas-Israel war. By doing so, we lose our own sense of purpose, joining instead a self-righteous mob that crushes logical thought, defaces our boulevards and buildings with defamatory slogans, and forcefully silences those who object to such misdirected efforts. We can’t “resolve” anything until we gain control over Minneapolis’ own decline of order.

Carolyn Light Bell, Minneapolis

•••

On Thursday, the Minneapolis City Council adopted a one-sided and uninformed resolution relating to the Israel-Hamas conflict (Minnesota section, Jan. 26). Having previously tossed the word “genocide” around like a Nerf ball and without a true understanding of the meaning of the term, the council’s vote reflected an interest in representing only a segment of Minneapolis residents. With an absolute disregard for the rise of antisemitism, elected representatives endorsed a resolution that lopsidedly supports Palestinians. Despite their pronouncement that “humanity is a shared project,” the majority council members’ apparent view is that humanity should only be shared with some.

We heard Thursday from Mayor Jacob Frey that, during shopping for Jewish food in a grocery store, the products had stickers accusing the purchaser of committing genocide. Setting aside whether it is the City Council’s task or role to involve itself in foreign policy, several members indicated a willingness to perpetuate falsehoods and narratives that divide and inflame rather than unify. At least two council members have, since Oct. 7, made unmistakable antisemitic statements without repercussion. This is more than embarrassing for our city. It is dangerous. This madness must stop, and the hate and falsehoods must be denounced at every opportunity.

The City Council was far out of its league in even weighing in on this issue. Mayor Frey should condemn this resolution in the strongest terms, whether that be by veto, executive pronouncement or other legal process.

Jacqueline Williams, Minneapolis

For many of us, the zoning code appears to be rules that are strictly enforced, and for single-family housing this is mostly true. Adherence to the rules allows for an automatic approval. I’ll call this administrative approval, because an administrator evaluates adherence to the rules.

In this context, I understand the lure of eliminating parking mandates (“Bill aims to put people before parking,” editorial, Jan. 25). If this rule was removed, required costs would be reduced and this could lead to more housing. That is a reasonable assumption, but why stop there? Why not eliminate rules on exterior materials, or open-space requirements, or minimum apartment sizes, or park dedication fees …

There are dozens, if not more, rules that describe required amenities. These all impose costs when strictly enforced.

However, anything bigger than a single-family home (or triplex in Minneapolis) follows the conditional-use permit (CUP) process. This is by nature a political approval process: The City Council decides. In this process, the zoning code is not a set of rules, it is the city’s starting bid in a negotiation between the city and the developer (or their lawyers). This negotiation covers all aspects of the zoning, from numbers of floors and parking spaces required to how many trees will be planted. The negotiation lasts one to two years and ends when both the Planning Commission and City Council approve the plan. Risks (i.e., costs) are still imposed on the developer, as the plan can be rejected. Bridgewater Bank went through this process twice before it could build. Lawyers and architects and delay are all costs of the political approval process.

If you define the problem as the process, rather than a single rule that is preventing housing from being built, a broader array of solutions exists. I’m partial to the look of six- to 10-plexes, so my preferred solution is to change the CUP to an administrative approval process on medium-sized structures. Anything less than 10,000 or 20,000 square feet either adheres to the rules or doesn’t and a decision is made. This would reduce the burden on small housing developers, small shop owners, small restaurateurs and more.

Ronald Hobson, St. Louis Park

The End-of-Life Options Act under consideration by the Minnesota Legislature is very disturbing (“Act clears its first hurdle,” front page, Jan 26). If you believe the Bible, Psalm 37:18 says: “The days of the upright are numbered by the Lord.” That is, not numbered by your doctor, your family, or in the case of this act, by yourself. By the Lord.

I have empathy for those who are suffering, but no empathy or even tolerance for our governor, who justifies support for this act by noting that it took his mother years to pay the expense of his father’s final days. This statement lowers the standard of self-induced death to a monetary reason. It’s a slippery slope. God help us.

Beth Swanberg, Bloomington

•••

I am a retired RN and attended the End-of-Life Options hearing at the State Capitol. Many who testified against this proposed legislation expressed concerns about scenarios that in no way relate to its provisions.

There is no allowance for any one individual to actively participate in the death of another, be they disabled, critically injured, elderly, mentally ill, indigent or a minority. Three major pillars support the provision of drugs to aid in dying. First, you must personally request this medication, orally and in writing. It may not be requested for you on your behalf. Second, you must qualify. For this, there are multiple requirements. You must be actively dying with a terminal illness, estimated at six months or less, and two medical providers must agree with this determination. In order to give informed consent, you must demonstrate the mental capacity to understand your diagnosis, and knowledge of the purpose for which medication is being offered, to end your life. You must also provide attestation that you are not being coerced in making your decision. Third, you must have the ability to self-administer the medication. This means by your own hand and unassisted. No one can legally do this either for you, or with you.

At the bedside of dying patients, and with my own family members, it was sometimes possible to manage the pain associated with dying. But not always. Pain can be intractable, and the ability to interact in any substantive way with loved ones can be lost in its management. I would like the right to say my goodbyes when I can tell my family how much I love them and, however painful the parting, that it is time.

Patricia Arneson, Wayzata

To bolster his campaign, Democratic presidential candidate Dean Phillips should select and announce his vice presidential running mate. A truly unifying choice would be Mitt Romney or Liz Cheney.

Daniel Scheller, Eagan