I live in north Minneapolis and hear gunshots most nights. Children and young adults in our community are being killed by guns, and most live in daily fear. Last week there was a fight between two preteen boys. The teenage brother of one of the boys allegedly intervened and shot and killed his little brother's adversary.

We are bombarded with direct mail and social media ads from groups and candidates attacking other groups, candidates, the mayor and the Minneapolis City Council. They put out insulting, dumbed-down and misleading messages, escalating the conflict and rhetoric over what are small differences in what we want for the future of our city.

See the parallel? It's a tragic lack of conflict-management skills that leads to loss of opportunity, peace, prosperity and human lives — in both cases.

It's time the grown-ups start acting like it and put their energy into respectful and constructive dialogue between elected leaders, police, prosecutors, the judiciary, the legal community, justice-involved populations, violence prevention and community and economic development professionals to reform and expand safety and justice.

Nikki Carlson, Minneapolis

•••

There is a lot of agreement on the need for police reform and public safety strategies that include prevention and mental health professionals. But some are opposing the second ballot question regarding the creation of a department of public safety, which could include the police, because there isn't a detailed plan. To those I would say: Did General George Washington have a specific plan for a new government when he and the revolutionaries launched the war of independence? Did Nelson Mandela have a plan in place for a new government when he led the movement to eliminate apartheid? These people had a vision of change and a commitment to just government.

We need to approve the second ballot question. Its passage will ensure Minneapolis has the opportunity to implement a more holistic and effective approach to public safety, which will enhance community health and help end violence against people of color by police officers.

Marie Christine Franchett, Minneapolis

•••

If you are convinced, as I am, that past police reform efforts have come to naught and that we need a more extensive redesign of how policing and safety are implemented, then you need to vote no on the proposed public safety charter amendment — regardless of its wording (now in its third or fourth iteration — I've lost count).

Please excuse the mixed metaphors, but as many have pointed out, we are putting the cart before the horse and are being asked to buy a pig in a poke here. Several City Council members had their kumbaya "defund the police" moment in Powderhorn Park last year and attempted a hasty charter amendment which the Charter Commission thankfully disallowed. In the whole year since, did they start presenting some ideas and structures on how their public safety department might work so we could all get in tune with it? Did they start to engage public safety and crime experts — and their own citizens — in some real creativity? Did they take the lead on organizing anything that moved us down the road to real progress?

Unfortunately, no. They left it to a private ad hoc group to assemble signatures and ram another hasty and ill-conceived (and doomed) proposal to the voters. That group's radical political bias is obvious in the "if necessary" clause regarding the inclusion of a police force. One is left puzzling what that's all about. No armed response available? Who knows? They then put control of the department under a joint City-Council-plus-mayor structure, completely in contradiction with the progress being attempted by another long-overdue charter amendment, which moves management of all departments exclusively to the mayor.

A golden opportunity for truly positive and creative change is being squandered. The "defund the police" slogan, regardless of what they say it really means, has unfortunately shown again that too many liberal Democrats have raised shooting oneself in the foot to a championship level. They need to step aside now.

This election is not our last chance to make substantial changes and properly adjust the charter. Let's vote this down and do it right.

Dennis Fazio, Minneapolis

•••

As a south Minneapolis resident who works in north Minneapolis, nearly daily I see the stark disparities for children in our city. My kids run up and down our block, while parents in other neighborhoods are terrified to let their kids out of the house.

Our current system of public safety is not working, pushing the either-or false dilemma that Minneapolis can have police who kill and maim without punishment, or no police at all.

We should be demanding a Police Department that holds officers accountable and keeps us and our children safe.

Voting yes to City Question 2 does not eliminate police; it gives our city leaders more options. It's silly to have the city charter require a specific number of police officers. Other cities don't have this police-union-driven rule.

Jay Kiedrowski's recent commentary ("It's a Trojan horse for defunding, disorder," Opinion Exchange, Sept. 9) noted that the City Council has done nothing since George Floyd's murder to reform the Minneapolis Police Department. Until Question 2 passes, the council has minimal authority over the MPD. Police Chief Medaria Arradondo has been directly in charge of the MPD for over four years, and was the deputy chief before that, but it's difficult to understand what reform has occurred under his leadership. Kiedrowski outlines Arradondo's nine-point plan; are we already in the midst of the plan?

Kiedrowski criticizes Question 2 for not being very specific as to how the proposed Department of Public Safety will operate, but that's not what a charter does. Charters shouldn't set specifics that will be nearly impossible to change.

We need a more comprehensive solution. The proposed Question 2 is a piece of that solution.

Tessa Wetjen, Minneapolis

TRAFFIC LAWS

If not enforced, they don't exist

With articles appearing in the Star Tribune indicating that cities are telling their police agencies to start disregarding the enforcement of laws regarding license tabs and vehicles on the road with various lights not functioning, it seems to me that those behind it have not thought through the ramifications of this directive ("Here's a police reform that will work," editorial, Sept. 10). Part of the reasoning as stated is because a disproportionate number of minorities have been stopped. I don't believe an officer is a racist if they stop someone whose vehicle does not pass laws.

Isn't it on the shoulders of the owner of the vehicle to maintain their vehicle according to local and state laws?

What will happen if a driver signals to make a turn but the turn signal light isn't working, and a driver coming from the other direction doesn't realize the other driver is turning? Certainly, a serious accident could occur. What will happen if a driver slams on their brakes in heavy traffic and their brake lights are not functioning? Yes, another serious, life-threatening accident could happen. If these types of accidents occur in cities that are not enforcing all traffic laws, and a driver is injured by a vehicle that doesn't pass these vehicle laws, I would venture a guess that the city could be subject to a very serious lawsuit.

Also, cities are choosing to not stop drivers who have expired license tabs. If these laws are no longer enforced, will these drivers ever buy license tabs again? Doesn't the money from license tabs go to repair and maintenance of our roadways? I will assume parts of our infrastructure will deteriorate to conditions worse than they are now. Is this right for law-abiding and taxpaying citizens?

Bill Winters, Sun City West, Ariz.

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.