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

•••

I grew up in Arizona in the 1970s. When I was 8 years old, I was sent to live with my dad, stepmom and stepsiblings. We didn't have a lot of money. At my school, you could work in the cafeteria to get "free lunch." This entailed scraping and spraying the leftovers and pushing the trays down the line and through the huge, industrial dishwashing machine. It was behind an open window where all your classmates could see you, like an animal in the zoo. It was humiliating, hot, sweaty, wet work. I was the new girl in school in the third grade and spent the entire lunch hour breaking child labor laws while my classmates ate together and had recess. At the end of the hour, the lunch ladies gave you a few minutes to scarf down your "free lunch" before rushing you back to class.

So what did little Brandi do? I stopped working and I stopped eating. I would sit on the playground and wait for the other kids to get done eating and then have recess with them. When they asked me why I didn't eat lunch, I would just say, "Because I'm not hungry."

The truth is, I was hungry. I was always hungry. I oftentimes skipped breakfast at home as my stepmom only allowed oatmeal, which I hated. Long bus ride to and from school. Most days my first meal wasn't until dinner, around 6 p.m. I would eat as fast as I could to beat my siblings to the seconds before they were gone. My friend's dad in high school once asked me if I had a hollow leg, because I would gorge myself anytime I ate with them. I had a high metabolism so most of the food didn't "stick" to me. I felt like I could never have enough food, which created a lifelong, unhealthy relationship with it that I still struggle with.

So, yes, I'm OK with my tax dollars going to free lunch for kiddos ("Better than a ban: Free lunch for all," Readers Write, Dec. 5). Not just the poor kids but the "rich" kids, too. Not just the young kids but the high schoolers. For some kids, it might be the only meal they get the whole day.

Brandi Bennett, Minneapolis

To the contrary, we are grateful for and emboldened by the level of community engagement. The city changed its structure to include more diverse voices. We formed a Peace, Employment, Accountability and Community Engagement (PEACE) Commission and transformed two others: the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Commission (DEIC) and the Community Service Commission (CSC).

These commissioners have infused DEI into the work of all city advisory groups. For example, the PEACE Commission partners with the Pohlad Family Foundation on "Reimagining Public Safety Through Collaborative Solutions." The DEIC continues the city's Just Deeds work on racial covenants and racism in housing, collaborates with the Native Governance Center on land acknowledgment work and hosts quarterly community programs. Additionally, the CSC supports our community by addressing food insecurity, housing needs, domestic violence prevention, services for at-risk youth and more.

In addition, many Black and Indigenous people, people of color and allies organize to facilitate and attend meetings, events and programs. Resident groups as well as nonprofit organizations collaborate with the city to help support our work.

Interest around DEI efforts is not flagging in Golden Valley, it's surging. We invite all community members in and around Golden Valley to continue partnering with us to ensure our city is a vibrant and welcoming environment to live, work and play for all.

This letter is signed by Golden Valley Mayor Shep Harris and City Council Members Maurice Harris, Denise La Mere-Anderson, Gillian Rosenquist and Kimberly Sanberg.

It's time to listen to the people of Minneapolis and pass a strong rent-stabilization policy. We've waited long enough. There is a strong mandate for the City Council to send this recommended policy to the ballot for voters to decide. We support a strong rent-stabilization policy because our goal as a community should be allowing families to find and remain in decent, safe and sanitary homes — not in shelters, encampments or in their vehicles.

Those who oppose a strong rent-stabilization policy must find a more effective way to positively impact solutions to our city's housing crisis rather than spending millions of dollars opposing those efforts.

John W. Saxhaug and Lyn Rabinovitch, Minneapolis

•••

The problems that rent control presents are twofold ("'I will veto' 3% rent cap, Frey says," Dec. 15). The direct result of a rent-control regimen, as St. Paul has recently learned to its chagrin, is that many millions of dollars of housing development money will be pulled out of the city of Minneapolis. The problem of an inadequate housing stock will thereby be exacerbated.

Until the underlying problems of income and wealth disparity are ameliorated, rent control is just a Band-Aid, and a counterproductive Band-Aid at that.

Peter Hill, Minnetonka

•••

I am hopeful the City Council and Mayor Jacob Frey are taking seriously the need for affordable housing and renters' desire to stay in our city and thrive. In the 2021 election, voters said yes to rent stabilization. The City Council created a work group in 2022 with the goal of drafting a policy to put on the 2023 ballot. We've stalled long enough. It's time for the City Council to send the recommended policy to the ballot.

As a permanently disabled renter in Minneapolis who works part time, I support the working group's recommendation of a 3% cap on rent increases with no exemptions. I currently pay over 70% of my income toward my monthly rent. I am a good tenant and pay my rent on time. I don't cause trouble. I love my apartment and my community in the 11th Ward, and I want to continue to live here and be a part of it. This is my home. I am not the only one with deep concerns over how much my rent will go up for my next lease renewal. I am not the only one in Minneapolis who fears being homeless either again or for the first time.