Letter of the Day: Commissioners take opposite stands on funding 'wet house'

I've received a great deal of feedback -- both positive and negative -- regarding my criticism of "wet house" funding in last week's Star Tribune ("Not always sober, but safe," Aug. 12). The story originated from a posting on my blog (www.taxpayerwatchdog.org) about county and state funding of homes for chronic alcoholics in which they are allowed to continue to drink alcohol.

Despite what I have heard from some, my opposition to this funding is not based on a lack of compassion (which is always the accusation when one opposes funding a particular program) or a fundamental ignorance of the disease of alcoholism.

Rather, it's a simple reality for policymakers in the current budget climate. Taxpayer money is a finite resource and I would prefer to spend it on chemical dependency treatment programs, some of which work very well. I believe we are underfunding these programs and we have many chemically dependent people clamoring for them. Every dollar we spend on wet houses is a dollar we cannot spend on treatment.

JEFF JOHNSON, PLYMOUTH; Hennepin County commissioner

•••

The recent right-wing attacks on Anishinabe Wakiagun compel me to create a new award: the Drive Off the Cliff Award for bad ideas, named in honor of the radical right's recent success in driving the American and world economies off a cliff.

Now they're after a program that saves taxpayers money, reduces drinking and provides a more humane existence for a group of chronically ill individuals (to say nothing of getting a number of homeless people off the streets -- though admittedly not suburban streets, but that shouldn't matter).

At some point we ought to stop listening to advice from people leading us toward the precipice. When are we going to quit listening to advice that will lead us over yet another cliff?

PETER MCLaughlin, Minneapolis; Hennepin County commissioner