Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.
•••
Soren Stevenson's commentary on the Hennepin Avenue remake raised more questions than it answered ("The war in Ukraine, your wallet and the Hennepin Avenue remake," Opinion Exchange, June 15). He claims "the Hennepin Avenue reconstruction with a 24/7 bus lane is the best thing that Minneapolis can do right now to support Ukraine. It's the best we can do to support our local businesses."
Oh, really? How does a project that will not start until 2024 and will take two years to complete support Ukraine in any way, let alone "right now"? This argument seems extremely flimsy. But even more preposterous is the claim that tearing up the street in front of Hennepin Avenue businesses for two years and then limiting or eliminating parking along that street until the next street rebuild is "the best thing we can do" to support these businesses.
As a resident of Uptown, I used to walk to the Apple store and Columbia clothing store in the 3000 block of Hennepin. When that stretch of street was rebuilt into a sterile bus corridor with no parking, these businesses quickly closed shop. Now I need to drive to the suburbs to avail myself of their services. How does this save gas?
Buses on Hennepin serve primarily to haul commuters to their jobs in downtown Minneapolis, not to provide access to the local businesses they whiz by. And hopefully, the Ukraine war will be resolved before this ill-conceived road reconstruction is even started, let alone completed.
Donald Wolesky, Minneapolis
•••
Reading the article "Setting clock on bus lanes" on the Hennepin rebuild (June 14) made me wonder why the walk from one's parking spot of one to two blocks to a local business is detrimental for said businesses on Hennepin Avenue, but that same walk from a parked automobile is not detrimental for the airport, Mall of America, M Health Fairview Southdale Hospital, Target Field, U.S. Bank Stadium, the Minnesota State Fairgrounds or even Cub Foods on a busy weekend?
G. Travis Norvell, Minneapolis
REMOVING TREES
Not worth the risk on Summit
The recently announced plan to make Summit Avenue a part of a regional trail system does not clearly state that its trees would be at risk, but recent public information sessions have caused many neighbors and me to be deeply concerned ("Talk of Summit Av. trail alarms residents," June 5).
At the most recent session, on June 6, residents emphasized that its trees are a key element of the unique nature of Summit Avenue and feature prominently in its inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. We were informed that "removal of trees is not a part of this project." But when a resident noted the importance of maintaining a sufficient zone to protect the roots of existing trees, the answer was that "the master plan does not include tree-by-tree considerations." When asked for a firm commitment that the project would not harm the trees, the answer was that with any construction, stuff happens.
Sadly, that's true. And it's why the analysis needs to be done at a higher level. The mature trees are irreplaceable. We humans should not cavalierly put them at further risk with trendy plans of the moment. The facts of urban transportation continue to evolve and are hard to predict. To say "we're working to limit the impact of the project on trees" is backward. Instead, we should recognize that the trees of Summit Avenue are paramount, and that a threshold requirement for any new construction is a scientifically valid determination that it would not threaten their long-term survival.
Regional trail systems are a valuable aspect of regional planning. But given the incalculable costs to its trees, maybe Summit Avenue should not be part of one.
Rosalie O'Brien, St. Paul
•••
Ramsey County Board Commissioner Trista MatasCastillo's counterpoint on the decimation of Cleveland Avenue's mature trees contains at least two fallacies ("A modern Cleveland Avenue will serve generations to come," Opinion Exchange, June 14). The first is that she assumes the planet will be inhabitable by human "generations to come." As climate change ravages the Earth, that is far from certain, and to that end, we can ask whether cutting more than 150 mature trees furthers or hinders that goal.
Secondly, it seems that she and indeed most of us still cannot appreciate the true worth of a tree. We seem to think that trees are just another crop like Kentucky bluegrass or hybrid corn. We fail to credit the web of life that is enmeshed in a tree — the mammals, birds and insects that depend on it and the soil, the water and gases that cycle through it. Recent research even raises the possibility that a tree is a sentient being, in a different way than those of us who read this letter, but certainly more alive to the world than the County Board with its "multimodal" gobbledygook would have you believe.
County Board, reconsider. Create a society coming after us that cherishes all living beings.
Sue Leaf, Center City, Minn.
MINNEAPOLIS POLICE
New discipline, old disappointment
What do bartenders, bluegrass bassists and Minneapolis police officers have in common? They can show up to work drunk and not lose their job ("Mpls. creates new police discipline system," June 14).
As usual, Mayor Jacob Frey's new discipline matrix for the Minneapolis Police Department is too little, too late.
Matthew Byrnes, Minneapolis
•••
Minnesota Department of Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero needs to brush up on her circumlocution ("Stalled Mpls. police talks to resume," June 11). Her dismissal of the Minneapolis city attorney's request for the evidence behind DHR's report bashing the Minneapolis police just sneers at honesty. Since the parties "are not currently in court litigating each fact," no facts need intrude on the inquisition. DHR is the temple of people whose truth can't wait for proof.
To defend DHR, the article presents Christy Lopez. Her background is in "patterns and practices investigations" for the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice: the soul mates of DHR. From their corner, she assures us that DHR's stonewalling is perfectly normal for this stage of the process. No evidence needs to be revealed unless the city dares to doubt DHR's omniscience and has to be dragged into court.
Lopez and Lucero need to square their stories. Lucero says "that the city already possesses the evidence to corroborate her agency's findings." Meanwhile, the city says it has found evidence to debunk one of DHR's key claims: that MPD never spied on white organizations as it did on Black ones.
Since no one in DHR's camp bothers much over facts, they have no basis on which to object to the charge that they are not telling us about the nature and extent of problems at MPD. And that raises a long overdue question about the honesty of the whole "racial reckoning" of the past two years. How many other lies have we gulped down our guilt gullet? How far past reality is this crusade running? And how much complexity can one word really explain?
Charles Jolliffe, Edina
