Readers Write (Oct. 16): Freeways and communities, the 2016 campaign, water, Twin Cities Marathon

As an individual who crosses Hwy. 100 several times a week, I can vouch that highway crossings disconnect a community. They are not a pedestrian-friendly environment. There are environmental and safety features that make them inhospitable. Most lack protection from sun (summer) and wind (winter) and safe interaction with traffic.

However, I am not a proponent of highway caps ("Land bridges could transform sections of I-94," Oct. 9). They won't reconnect communities in a material way. Interstate 94 bisects urban communities for 26 miles along its path from Brooklyn Park through Minneapolis to Maplewood. The proposed highway cap covers five blocks.

Let's focus our attention and dollars on reconnecting communities the entire length of I-94 by improving the dozens of highway crossings that already exist.

Peter M. Leschak ("What's a voter like me to do? The progressive," Oct. 9) is not really a progressive, if in fact that is his claim. Progressives would never vote for the status quo, which is what either major party will deliver, albeit with slight variations, and Leschak says he's throwing in for Hillary. Progressives vote their conscience, ethics and morality, never fear or expediency. The reason for this steadfastness is quite simple: All or nearly all the advances this country has made in social and political life have originated in third parties.

The Liberty Party promoted abolition in the 1840s. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, third parties such as the Progressive Party and the Social Democratic Workingmen's Party promoted 1) strict limits and disclosure requirements on political campaign contributions, 2) registration of lobbyists, 3) national health service, 4) social [security] insurance, 5) a minimum wage for women, 6) an eight-hour workday, 7) a securities commission, 8) workers' compensation, 9) an inheritance tax, 10) women's suffrage, 11) obligatory education, 12) prohibition of child labor, and more. We would benefit from none of this if it weren't for third parties. And it is especially important this year to vote third parties precisely because the two majors are so corrupt, disgusting and anti-progressive.

And just a word about Ralph Nader in 2000: Al Gore won the popular vote; the U.S. Supreme Court stopped Florida's statewide recount; every third party in Florida won more votes than the margin between Gore and George W. Bush; if Gore had even won his home state, he'd have been president. Facts don't support the claim that Nader gave the election to Bush. Nader embodied the progressive movement in 2000, and I was proud to vote for him and will never regret it.

I hope Leschak reconsiders. The changes he hopes for will come from third parties, as history shows, but only if he and many like him vote their "personal values." As Jerry Garcia said, the lesser evil is still evil.

It amazes me that Leschak neglected to mention third-party presidential candidate Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party. I believe Johnson is the better choice regardless of what letter writers and polls say, because he appeals to voters of all political stripes, including antiwar activists like me. If the Democrats had fielded Sen. Elizabeth Warren or Rep. Keith Ellison as their candidate, then I might have voted for them. The reason third-party candidates for office rarely succeed is because the people know little about them, a fact that could be partly if not entirely attributed to the collective efforts of both the Democratic and Republican parties to shut out these fresh voices. I urge the readers of this paper to go with neither Trump nor Clinton.

The Oct. 9 article "Getting into the flow of water protection" was interesting and informative. Informative because it laid out some of the efforts of recent legislation to improve both aquifer and downstream water quality by slowing down just a small part of the runoff during rainfall. One of the responders was correct in questioning the actual amount of improvement that will be gained. However, the interesting part was the total dismissal by farmers and the writer of the amount of arable land that has been gained by these same farmers and their predecessors as the result of drainage, either tiling or open ditching, over the past 60-plus years. One of the participants referred to buffer strips as a "land grab." Not so. The land grab, if there was one, was the drainage programs that removed the low spots (potholes) that were originally collecting runoff and slowing down the flow to creeks and rivers.

I grew up on a farm and hunted upland birds at a time when there was a depression or pothole within 500 yards no matter where you stood. We cannot continue to starve our land of its lifeline without dire long-term consequences. My parents left their land in better shape than when they had acquired it, and I am a lifelong conservative.

The Oct. 9 article by Jason Sole and Rachel Wannarka about the Philando Castile shooting ("Choi must not repeat Freeman's missteps") was a sad commentary on the lack of objectivity that still exists. The authors basically called out Ramsey County Attorney John Choi to charge St. Anthony police officer Jeronimo Yanez because the minority community is owed retribution. The mischaracterization of Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman's pains in the Jamar Clark case — taking analysis and explanation — leaves one to wonder what kind of "criminal justice" Sole teaches at Hamline and Metropolitan State universities. Once again, racial profiling is purposely confused with criminal profiling. Grand juries are labeled "secretive and biased" with no evidence other than that past results were not what the authors wanted.

To characterize Choi's pending decision as generating "excitement" or "disappointment and frustration" underscores a substantial disconnect in how a deadly force incident should be treated. This is not some scorekeeping exercise or a tit-for-tat game. Calling out Choi as someone who should even the score is counterproductive. I hope this attitude isn't pervasive in the communities of color. The facts alone should dictate his decision.

A huge word of thanks to the thousands of volunteers and spectators who helped out at the Twin Cities Marathon last Sunday. The encouragement received by runners was welcomed. Live music, water stops, signs and shouts of encouragement were all nicely interspersed along the route.

It had been 30 years since running my last Twin Cities Marathon before getting the opportunity to be a pacer, complete with a 3:15 sign and balloons. I had almost forgotten how beautiful the course was, especially on such a spectacular fall day.

One small suggestion for those with signs. "Looking good" and "You're doing awesome" were most welcome, but there were also a few signs that read "Run like you just stole something." Running in a marathon is a completely different pace than sprinting in fear. Relaxed and steady is the way to go.

Last, to those running in my 3:15 group, you were indeed looking good and ran an awesome race!