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

•••

I am a local attorney and, more important, I am the younger sister of Steve Markey, who was killed in an attempted carjacking in 2019. Steve was my best friend and hero.

I have been informed that the Star Tribune recently published a commentary from Deputy Hennepin County Attorney Mark Osler in response to the public attention generated by the proceedings related to one of the people who killed my brother ("Moriarty's vision, not critics' fears, has been fulfilled," Opinion Exchange, Oct. 25).

It is very unprofessional that the Hennepin County Attorney's Office is utilizing a newspaper to engage in a public response to legal matters that have deeply impacted my family. As a victim, I am permitted by Minnesota Statutes Section 611A to have notice and input into the treatment of my brother's killers, and I have done nothing wrong by asserting those rights. I am deeply disappointed to learn that many other families have been treated similarly by the County Attorney's Office.

It is unwarranted and unprofessional for a public official to direct editorial comments at a family seeking justice after experiencing an unspeakable tragedy. It is bullying, harassment and unacceptable.

Finally, crime rates are a lagging indicator. I also note that the U.S. attorney has had to step into the Hennepin County Attorney's Office's breach and prosecute violent crimes and carjacking, which is something the County Attorney's Office should have been handling. Attributing the reduction in crime to the County Attorney's Office is disingenuous and is an attempt to divert the public's attention from the its atrocious treatment of traumatized families like mine.

The Star Tribune's excellent City Hall reporter, Dave Orrick, noted in his Oct. 11 article on the Third Precinct headquarters debate the following: "While [Minneapolis Mayor Jacob] Frey and others on multiple sides of the debate over policing have endorsed the concept of a comprehensive community safety center — a facility that would house not only police but other public services as well — no one has offered details" ("Third Precinct debate could run well past Election Day").

Shame on them. The council and mayor have been urged repeatedly to do just that by the Capital Long-Range Improvement Committee, on which I served. These citizens appointed by the mayor and council review, rank and comment on departmental capital spending proposals.

In 2019, when a badly needed new First Precinct downtown first was proposed, CLIC spelled out multiple areas in which the proposal needed more detail, including how it would be community oriented. In 2020, just after George Floyd's murder, CLIC urged that investments in the First and Fourth (North Side) Precincts should be deferred until the city better spelled out how policing should be reimagined. In 2021, as the debate over policing widened, CLIC underlined that the city resolve its strategic direction for public safety, given various proposals to add services such as behavioral crisis teams, before precinct investments proceeded. In 2022, it spelled out the needed details, noting that the city was at "a precipitous moment where infrastructure designs and investments must complement the mission and vision of reimagined policing."

Had the mayor and council heeded this advice, they might have found an easier time siting the city's Flying Dutchman of a precinct. Their indecision is bad for the community, bad for cops and bad for the city's image.

Steve Brandt, Minneapolis