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

•••

Carol Becker recently submitted a brief against the Minneapolis 2040 Plan that can be summarized as follows: You people (who support this cockamamie plan) are naive fools. Wake up and smell the coffee — you have no agency to affect climate change (or anything else, from land use patterns to driving habits). Our only goal should be to protect single-family homes from “densification” — which won’t happen anyway because the city’s population projections are ridiculous (”We need a 2040 Plan for Minneapolis, not Fantasyland,” Opinion Exchange, Jan. 27).

Yikes. That’s one breathtakingly cynical view of things. In my view, any hope of addressing climate change rests on our willingness to transform our modes of thought and behavior in ways that dramatically reduce energy consumption. When it was approved (by a 12-1 vote!), the 2040 Plan was nationally recognized for charting this new path, and I thought that just maybe we were turning a historic corner.

But now comes the inevitable backlash: The plan, we’re told, is a bunch of feel-good nonsense, built on hysteria about climate change and population growth. All we need, according to Becker, are some minor adjustments that conform to “reality.” Say what? All the research, analysis and community process that went into creation of this plan were pure fantasy?

I don’t have the space to rebut her critique of forecasts (which are not even the driving force of this plan); it’s enough to remind readers that we don’t have enough dwelling units for our existing population (ergo, our existing crisis in affordability and homelessness). And yet 2040 Plan opponents would bar huge swaths of our built environment — all single-family neighborhoods — from consideration in solving this problem.

Every major social change since World War II has engendered fierce opposition from those clinging to an idealized past. We should resist the call to Make Minneapolis Great Again.

I’m full of hope. Isn’t it refreshing that we’re now, many of us, talking about the impending death of ourselves and others in the here and now, and out in the open? (”End-of-Life Options Act clears its first hurdle,” Jan. 26.) I’m guessing I have lots of company, having taken 18 months to prepare my will because I just didn’t want to think about this whole prospect of my one day dying. In certain respects, maybe a part of me is still that teenager-at-risk, thinking I’m going to live forever.

Whether it’s Lucas Bellamy or Gov. Tim. Walz’s father, we all deserve to both live and die with dignity, and remaining family members as well after their loved one is gone. As a pet owner of 50-plus years, I’ve struggled on five occasions to decide to end the life of a living being I considered a 24/7 family member, a child of my own. I was neither careless nor uninformed with those decisions, all of which were emotionally painful. I took what time I had to consider the possible alternatives. In all instances, I asked lots of questions and, in several, sought out second opinions. At some point, with each one I came to realize I was out of options, and had to make a decision. I ended the life of each one of my animals because they were in pain and would clearly not get better. It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever had to do.

Because I cherish both animal and human life, like you, I approach this issue with humility. Is it for me to decide when someone else’s pain is too much? Is it for me to ask someone to keep breathing when every breath is filled with excruciating pain? Is it OK to “pull the plug” when I or someone else has become a seeming vegetable?

What I ask of all of us is to be gentle with ourselves and one another as we ask these difficult questions. Most of all, I ask that we keep talking (and writing) about death and dying. I hope we all can agree that this is worth doing, that this is a conversation (of many conversations) worth having. I invite all points of view. I need to hear what others think and feel. So, thank you — for reading this.

Judith Monson, St. Paul

While attending the hearing of the Minnesota House Health Finance and Policy Committee for the End-of-Life-Options Act, I noticed someone against the act carrying a sign that said “Death is bad.” Bad, as in we shouldn’t partake? Bad, like there should be a law against it? Or bad as in, let people suffer in their final days because, you know, death is bad?

Many people spoke of watching a loved one suffer through their last days. People with terminal illnesses spoke of just having the comfort of knowing the medication was available if they need it at the end, and urged quick passage of the bill. Several others brought out that useful “slippery slope” argument, worrying that the legalization of end-of-life medication would be used on the developmentally disabled. No amount of assurance, like the fact that it has been legal in 10 states and Washington, D.C., for years with no sign of slipping off any slopes, ever seems to sway them.

One gentleman offered up a quote: If the bill is passed, not one more person will die, but many fewer people will suffer. I think that says it all. I wish to thank the committee for passing this bill forward.

Mary Alice Divine, White Bear Lake

The Unity Community Mediation Team (UCMT) was troubled to learn about the exposure of our youth at the Powderhorn Art Sled Rally to so-called art that depicted the Minneapolis Police Department Third Precinct building on fire with a figure of a pig inside the burning building. And we are troubled that some who claim to be for police reform defended this display. We are speaking out against this provocative action that was done in front of young children, and those groups who defend it. What are you teaching them about public safety? What are you teaching them about police officers? Why are you dehumanizing our police officers and celebrating the violence that traumatized so many in our communities and led to the suffering mainly of those communities least able to defend themselves?

As a diverse body representing our diverse communities in Minneapolis, we reject your provocation and dehumanization. You are not supporting the effort to bring change with this display. We honor the service of those who wear the MPD uniform. Don’t teach hate. It will not bring transformation, just more conflict.

The Rev. Ian D. Bethel, Minneapolis

I applaud the prominent placement of the article “School libraries’ happy plot twist” (Jan. 28). Too many voters and parents are unaware that their local school districts have cut school librarian positions. They do not realize how this translates to a decrease in children’s reading. Some of the districts that have made this crucial cut will even brag about how well they’re doing when they can’t even afford this basic program. I encourage voters and parents to contact their local schools to ensure children have the benefit of a full-time school librarian.