Has anyone thought about how rezoning to higher density will affect the elderly, the disabled and anyone else with mobility issues?

Allowing construction of higher-density buildings without provision for parking spaces for each unit will be disastrous.

Remember that people can suddenly and unexpectedly become mobility-impaired — either temporarily or permanently.

While a completely able-bodied person may find the lack of nearby parking an inconvenience or an annoyance, what about someone who must rely on vehicles to survive? For example, someone who needs care by home health services? People who do this work are very difficult to find (and keep) — why would they go to a Minneapolis address where they might have to search for parking, take precious minutes to find it and be blocks from the client’s residence? Where will Uber/Lyft/Metro Mobility/transport vans park to pick people up (who might need assistance and take some time to embark)?

How will they shop and get their provisions back to their homes when parking isn’t available?

If anyone thinks this is an exaggeration, go to Uptown where two- to three-story apartment buildings line the streets, off-street parking is limited, and local parking restrictions abound. Residents often park blocks from home, sometimes as far as six or eight blocks during snow emergencies. Try to imagine this situation across the city.

The proposal sounds like a nightmare to this Minneapolis native and frequent visitor. And a major barrier to housing access for all but the able-bodied.

Sue Sherek, Fridley


Mr. President, some of us thank you

Mr. President, as you know, the newest impeachment scandal will pass. But another one will pop up again, courtesy of some folks who still don’t like you in the intelligence community and who, like clockwork, will again leak something to select Democrats, who will then leak it to media.

Mr. President, as you know, you still have disloyal officials in the White House, such as whistle-blowers who will file complaints based on secondhand accounts.

Mr. President, as you know, the hatred for you overrides reason.

Mr. President, as you know, Democrat Rep. Al Green is right when he says: “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach the president, he will get re-elected.”

Mr. President, thanks for continuing to show up and doing your job daily, despite these challenges.

P.S. Mr. President, thanks for never having taken a presidential paycheck ($400,000 a year, before taxes). And for donating your nine quarterly paychecks so far to different government agencies to help others.

Neil F. Anderson, Richfield

• • •

The oath taken: “I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will ... to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The oath lived: “I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will ... to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, defend and aggrandize my ego.”

Brian J. Willette, Minneapolis


You can make a difference now

Ten things we can do to fight climate change:

1. Eat less meat. Get your protein from plant-based sources.

2. Bring your boxes and bags to the grocery stores, instead of using theirs. Reuse! Don’t just recycle. Recycle only when you can no longer reuse or repurpose the item.

3. Plant a tree or two.

4. Cut down on the use of pesticides and fertilizers.

5. Plan your trips. Don’t make unnecessary runs. And consider taking the bus going to work, downtown, or the State Fair.

6. Engage a garbage hauler that offers composting and cost by weight. (If not available, see 9, below). You will be amazed at how little actual garbage you will generate. When eating out, put garbage, compostables and recyclables in the right place.

7. Purchase solar panels or buy the solar option from your power provider.

8. Turn the thermostat up in summer and down in winter.

9. Lobby your city to unify garbage hauling. Why have 10 trucks do what one can do?

10. Think of 10 more things, and write a letter to the editor.

Douglas L. Johnson, Minnetonka

• • •

The recent and ongoing demonstrations, notably by activist young people, in support of climate change relief are visible evidence of grassroots support for U.S. policies to greatly limit domestic emissions.

While demonstrations were evident in some other countries, it seems much of the attention is directed at the U.S., which releases around 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and other nations that may be sympathetic and responsive to the messaging.

But if this is a generally recognized crisis that requires a global solution, we have to wonder how many of the major emitters are listening to the demonstrations and, more important, are likely to respond.

China is by far the largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world and has more coal production than all other countries combined. It’s no surprise that no one demonstrates there, about anything, and public sentiment will not drive the decision-making on climate change.

With the U.S. having pulled out of the 2016 Paris Agreement, it’s far from clear what level of commitment for compliance there will be from the major emission countries that supported this pact. How compelling is an agreement with no sanctions for noncompliance?

The U.S. can act to limit our emissions at whatever cost we choose, but regardless of what we do to diminish our contribution, there must be some sort of rock-solid agreement by all the major emitters to ensure the objectives of the Paris Agreement are met. Without leadership from all the key international players, demonstrations can only do so much to achieve a truly global solution.

Jeffrey Peterson, Minneapolis


Sometimes, officer action is justified

How are allies of racial justice supposed to get on board with the latest protest led by Nekima Levy Armstrong (“ ‘Get away from me!’ cop yelled at man,” Sept. 25)? Police brutality against racial minorities absolutely needs to be punished in every legitimate instance. But how is the shooting death of Ronald K. Davis anything other than a justified, albeit horribly tragic, police action? The police officer’s car was rammed from behind by Davis, and he was then confronted by the aggressive, knife-wielding driver. Look at that video! I don’t care if he’s black, white or purple — that dude is a violent threat to himself, his community and that police officer. I’m the last person to advocate violence as a solution, but what was the officer supposed to do?

Armstrong, there are legitimately disturbing uses of force by the police against racial minorities that deserve protest. There’s no reasonable argument to suggest that this was one of those. Are you demanding that this officer let himself be stabbed in the interest of racial justice?

Travis Anderson, Minneapolis

We want to hear what you think. Send us a note here