This week we had our National Night Out neighborhood block party. As in past years, it was a great opportunity to get together with our neighbors, share our experiences of living in the neighborhood and get to know each others' families. What set this year as different from the past was the visit from the local police that happens every year. The difference was that the message from local law enforcement was that as crime escalates we, as the local residents, need to change our behavior to help make us safe.

We learned that we need to stop parking our cars on our driveways. If we do we should leave our glove boxes and center consoles open so as to demonstrate that there is nothing valuable in our cars. It was suggested that we take our garage door remote out of the car and disable any remote programmed into our cars' electronics. We should never put outgoing mail in our mailboxes that could be taken to our detriment. There was an encouragement to get a Ring-style video doorbell so that this information could be shared with law enforcement directly. When questioned about the increase in local crime there was a tacit admission by the police officer who attended that they know who the perpetrators are but that attempts to take these people off the streets are not successful due to the current judicial system's practice of releasing the accused without any strong consequences. I can only speculate that law enforcement over time will not arrest these individuals as it would be a waste of time.

I left the meeting with great pride in the cohesiveness that our neighborhood has been able to achieve (with thanks to our host of many years) but concerned about the message that we, as law abiding citizens, need to change our behavior because the local government, whose primary responsibility is to protect us, refuses to or cannot do so. To me the message was that you need to protect yourself because the people who have the charge to protect us cannot or will not.

Mark Plooster, Plymouth

•••

I read with interest "Why the reform amendment must pass" (Opinion Exchange, Aug. 4). The piece was written by 13th Ward residents (affluent west/southwest portions of the city). It reflects a remarkable degree of privileged naivete. They write: "No one is suggesting that someone who is being robbed at gunpoint should call 311 for a team of therapists." Well, the "abolitionist" portion of the defund movement presumably is suggesting this. The amendment itself reads that police officers will be included in the comprehensive health approach to public safety "if necessary." If sworn officers and investigators are cut significantly as they likely would be under this amendment, criminals would continue to be emboldened, brazen and very active, and a team of therapists could well be all that is available to that person being robbed. This would be much more of an issue in parts of the city other than the 13th Ward.

Peter Langworthy, St. Paul

As I try to decide how to vote on the Yes 4 Minneapolis charter amendment, I am far more interested in hearing what people in the 4th Ward think than the 13th. I also live in a ward where my whiteness and prosperity mean I don't need much from the police in my daily life. I see more of them on the evening news than in front of my house. I very much want to see dramatic changes in the Minneapolis Police Department, but I worry about supporting what seems like a reckless proposal that, if passed, might lead to long-term damage to a progressive agenda. Those of us in the prosperous wards should defer to those who have become experts in law enforcement by dealing in their everyday lives with criminality and the way the police respond to it.

Tim Mungavan, Minneapolis

•••

The Yes 4 Minneapolis people are trying to prevent voters from learning that their "public safety" charter amendment would abolish the Police Department and the role of police chief unless deemed "necessary" at some later date — presumably by our (currently dysfunctional) City Council.

Hooray for those who are insisting that the truth appear — in plain English — on our ballots ("Debate heats up on ballot wording," front page, Aug. 5).

It's a model I urge the city to consider, to help ensure that voters aren't tricked into voting for something they actually oppose.

Mary Pattock, Minneapolis

I suspect that the Metropolitan Council's modest population growth estimate for the Twin Cities by 2050 — 800,000 — did not factor in the dramatic U.S. migration shifts predicted due to climate change ("In 2050: Older, more diverse," front page, Aug. 3). A recent study by the Rhodium Group predicts that as the bottom half of our country grows inhospitable, dangerous and hot, the largest migration in U.S. history will occur — inhabitants in the South and Southwest will move north seeking a better economy and a more temperate environment. Our once-chilly, water-abundant state is going to become more verdant and inviting, which could easily bring another 500,000 residents.

The Met Council's growth number also did not account for our share of the estimated 1 billion international climate refugees by 2050 that our U.S. fossil fuel addiction will have produced.

The council needs to reassess its estimate based on our new climate reality and moral responsibility. This is a huge challenge, but we have brought this on ourselves. We need more realistic growth estimates for the significant infrastructure planning that is now required.

I own and manage some 30-plus units in the metro area. I currently am owed up to $40,000 in delinquent rents ("Throw out the eviction ban," Opinion Exchange, Aug. 3). Many of my tenants have submitted applications, and I have submitted my part, to RentHelpMN. Even after getting notices that tenants were approved months ago, the checks have not arrived. There has been no response to requests for help and when new people apply they are encouraged to stop payments to the landlord. Half of the tenants are not paying. Taxes are coming up, and I see no way to pay the county when tenants don't pay me.

Wayne Carlson, Edina

I have a simple and obvious solution to the Vikings allegedly having the lowest COVID vaccination rate in the NFL: No shot, no paycheck. ("Mark Wilf echoes Zimmer's concern," Aug. 4.) You're paying a quarterback $31 million a season and you don't think you have the ability to make shots mandatory for him and others? The University of Michigan has made vaccinations mandatory for all students. Reading between the lines, it's quite easy to see why. Coach Jim Harbaugh's Wolverines are the engine that drives the university and makes the most money for it. They want their players healthy and on the field. If a publicly funded institution can make that decision, I'm positive a privately owned NFL team can too.

Come on, Zygi, you're the boss. Your science-disbelieving players are employees. Here's Step 1. Give Coach Mike Zimmer 10 days to enforce vaccinations for 100% of his players and staff. If he fails, fire him. Bring in a coach who's dedicated to leading and winning who will stand up to these prima donna millionaires and ensure his best players are healthy and able to play every week.

Tom Intihar, Brooklyn Park