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

•••

I couldn't agree more with Adam Platt in his commentary "No one's to blame but us for fraying our urban fabric" (Dec. 19). I live in Richfield but consider myself a Minneapolitan at heart, having lived in the city for many years. I don't go downtown as often as I used to. I suffer from "fear of fear of crime" and have also noticed feeling safer walking at night in other cities. My New Year's resolution: Go downtown and spend money once a month in 2024. Let's increase the crowds and dollars in our urban core. Will you join me?

Megan Webster, Richfield

In response to "As camp's time runs out, 'give us a safe spot'" (Dec. 18): In this case, it has been recommended that Nenookaasi, the largest homeless camp in Minneapolis, shut down to create enough space for further growth. For individuals needing accommodation, the camp offered some security under the supervision of a sobriety coach. On the other hand, other local residents express their disapproval because they have concerns regarding the amount of trash that is stacking up and the unlawful activities that have a connection with people from the camp. The range of homeless encampments in urban areas is made clear by this conflict. Nenookaasi's sobriety coach is an example proactive strategy to help individuals who are homeless and suffering from drug addiction. Such projects offer safety as well as potential pathways toward recovery for camp residents and have received understanding for their positive impacts.

However, it is difficult to ignore the concerns raised by the neighboring homeowners regarding safety and good sanitation. The rate of crime and trash buildup are serious risks to the prosperity of the community. These challenges often generate arguments regarding ways to support the homeless population while also protecting residential areas' cleanliness and security.

Nenookaasi's probable closure acts as an example of the delicate balance that has to be maintained between local communities' interest and sympathy for the homeless. The situation makes us consider the need for comprehensive plans that take into consideration the needs of the homeless in addition to the impacts next to the neighborhoods concerning the growth of cities.

Iddris Abu, St. Peter

I read Monday's Star Tribune and was very surprised and disappointed that there was no expression of outrage over federal judges deciding to allow nine criminal defendants' requests to travel outside Minnesota in the Feeding Our Future fraud cases ("9 in meal fraud case allowed to travel," Dec. 18). It is unusual for judges to allow people charged with serious felonies to leave the state, but we are letting these people, who were involved in stealing $250 million from us, the taxpayers, to leave — people who allegedly literally stole money that was intended to feed hungry children. These people were not only charged, but some pleaded guilty. Why do our judges continue to be more lenient to immigrants and alleged lawbreakers (in this case, both) than they are to U.S.-born, law-abiding Americans? All these immigrants, who are charged with stealing millions of dollars out of our pockets, had to say was that their uncle is dying, they had a wedding they need to attend and they're uncomfortable living here, and they are allowed to leave the state and/or country.

We are losing America, and if you care about that (I'm not sure the majority of us still do) it begins with being tough on all criminal defendants — regardless of their backgrounds. Judges need to judge blindly, and recognize that being soft on criminals today does not make up for injustices that oppressed people may have suffered in the past. That means judging without any recognition of immigration status, race, sexual or political preference or faith. That means, quit being soft on criminals just because they've had a tough life. That is not justice. If you break the law, you should pay the price — and part of that price is not leaving the state until your court case is settled and you have served your time, period. That would be true justice.

Matt Gulling, St. Paul

Thank you to the Minnesota Department of Health for giving me an example of Minnesota Nice and my newest plea to any violation I receive from any agency or officer ("Illegal high-dose THC products found at 39% of retailers," Dec. 19).

"Benefit of the doubt"? Minnesota Nice ... I love it. I hope that applies to countless encounters requiring enforcement for professional licensing, selling pharmaceuticals, restaurant codes, traffic violations, etc. Violate laws or harm someone once — "Sorry, my bad." Catch me a second time and please consider penalties or consequences to me and my business … from an industry generating $100 million in annual sales with potential serious medical consequences from selling these psychoactive products to consumers. Consumer safety? Soft on crime? "Chill, brother. Pass me some kind of gummy. I'll take my chances."

Steve McCormack, Hugo

The opinion piece by the editors of the Economist, "Objectively, is the news media biased?" (Dec. 18) summarizes the findings of its study by saying this: "Journalists tend to prefer the language used by Democratic lawmakers."

We should ask: Why is language used by Democrats preferred by journalists?

Responsible journalists are not seeking to ramp up emotions. Real journalists are seeking to be precise. Example: "Undocumented migrants" is accurate about a group of people who are in search of home but have no papers to prove who they are. In contrast, "illegal aliens" introduces judgment on the same group of people as being illegitimate and gives them a name ("aliens") that conjures up dangerous and creepy-looking space creatures.

Political views that mean to be healthy for the common good come from a dispassionate assessment of what is really true rather than a passionate assertion crafted to divide people or demean them.

Melinda Quivik, St. Paul

•••

The first whiff of puerile propaganda in "Objectively, is the news media biased?" is the premise that the world can be meaningfully classified as left/right, Democratic/Republican, liberal/conservative.

Second: "Our method has two advantages. Not only is it free of subjectivity, but it also measures ideology in absolute terms, providing answers to questions that mere rankings cannot resolve." (A subjectivity-free, absolute measure — a patentable treasure?)

After citing an impressive pile — hundreds of thousands — of articles and TV segments analyzed (except the Wall Street Journal, radio and social media), the Economist's proud certitude fizzles to weaselly waffling and, finally, to mere rank nothing: "[O]ur scoring method cannot distinguish between media bias and asymmetric polarization."

A "Katzenjammer Kids" rerun would have been more educational.