Readers Write: Housing, college professors, NBC News, presidential primaries, Ryan Londregan

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

•••

Lisa McDonald is correct to point out in her commentary “Cost of building, not zoning, is core reason for housing crisis” (Opinion Exchange, March 28) that the high costs of building housing are a crucial barrier to broad housing affordability in Minnesota. However, she makes a mistake in treating this issue as unrelated to local regulatory policies.

As the most glaring example, take minimum parking mandates, which vary massively across jurisdictions in Minnesota. Building a parking garage, whether above or below ground, can cost tens of thousands of dollars per parking spot, while many cities mandate parking in excess of what residents would otherwise demand. Similarly, some cities require buildings to use certain more expensive building materials, like brick and stone, for purely aesthetic purposes.

In less tangible ways, the land use status quo also increases risk and uncertainty around new development. When a developer doesn’t know if its project will survive a thicket of public hearings and bespoke approval processes, this too raises the cost of development. When oppositional neighbors force a project to wait 18 months for approval, it is burning money in the meantime.

These are some of the exact cost issues being targeted in the current push for improved statewide land use policies. And by McDonald’s own admission, reducing construction costs is one of the most important things we can do to make housing more affordable.

Zak Yudhishthu, St. Paul

•••

It is always good the hear from Lisa McDonald, and, as usual, she adds clarity to the discussion. Along with the items she mentions, I’d like to think that some of the increased cost of new construction reflects concern for better energy and water use and increases in pay for the trades.

I would also like to suggest that subsidies for housing may be more efficient with the subsidy coming before new construction is needed — for example, an intervention by the city when a property is falling into disrepair and before it’s abandoned and burned down by squatters. Good examples would be the apartments on W. 24th Street and Lyndale Avenue S. and at least one in Loring Park, the point being that reclaiming existing housing saves time and materials.

Steve Mayer, Minneapolis

Having taught at the college level for more than 40 years, I read “Intellectual diversity on campus? Indiana gives it a shot, and I wish I could approve” (Opinion Exchange, March 28) with much interest. It seems to me that getting worked up about whether faculty members lean left or right politically is a waste of time and certainly not something that can be fixed by legislation.

In my experience, the overwhelming majority of faculty guard their own personal politics very closely. One might say faculty appear nearly apolitical. As far as I can tell, most faculty are not talking politics at all, much less pushing their own political view on their students. The Noam Chomskys of academia are very rare.

Beyond this, the faculty left/right political differential polls suggested may be due to conditions other than any deliberate action designed to liberalize the campus. Politically right-leaning folks tend to be more interested in — and successful at — monetary gain while left-leaners seek job fulfillment through the love of learning and interest in teaching. After all, faculty members are very highly educated. They could go for the money if they wanted to, but if they did they wouldn’t choose college teaching. Compare faculty salaries with those in law, medicine and the corporate sector if you need data to support this claim.

Besides, what can be more conservative than celebrating job success by marching around in caps and gowns — that is, by dressing in robes like medieval monks?

Duane Cady, Shoreview

•••

Prof. Tyler Cowen’s thoughts on Indiana’s new law intended to promote “intellectual diversity” in granting tenure to college professors are revealing. He notes that “Under the law, campus boards of trustees will determine what intellectual diversity consists of ... .” The amorphous nature of “intellectual diversity” seems to make such a determination impractical, if not impossible, but that doesn’t seem to register with Cowen. Rather, he laments the scarcity of “conservative” professors such as he. From there, he imagines all sorts of dire scenarios: “right-wing and conservative professors could easily end up worse off under this new system.” He postulates that all these “liberal” academicians might “avoid hiring conservative professors at all, for fear of having their tenure decisions overturned.” And if all these dark scenarios weren’t enough, Cowen worries that the new law “creates a channel that students and university employees can use to complain about the political orientations of faculty members.” And this development will “shift power to students, which means easier classes and more grade inflation.”

Gracious! I had no idea that the lovely settings of so many college campuses were only facades — hiding a toxic swamp filled with faculty more concerned about holding power than providing young minds with a learning experience.

Richard Masur, Minneapolis

Regarding NBC News deciding to rescind the hiring of Ronna McDaniel and in response to letters objecting to that decision (”McDaniel debacle speaks volumes,” Readers Write, March 29): NBC News and MSNBC have many Republican contributors and generally provide diverse voices. What they cannot tolerate are people who contributed to activity designed to overthrow the U.S. government, which Ronna McDaniel did. Her activity may not have been criminal but it was certainly unpatriotic. NBC erred in hiring her and showed strength in recognizing that error.

Kathleen Morrison, St. Peter, Minn.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden may have won the Minnesota presidential primary last month, but the real winners were the state Republican and Democratic parties. The state law that created the presidential primary (drafted by both major parties) requires county and state election officials to share voter information with the parties. So a primary election completely run and paid for by state and county governments generates huge amounts of voter data for the major parties, all at no cost to them.

I resigned in protest from the Minnesota GOP in 2016 over Trump, and it took years to get off the mailing lists, phone calls and text messaging operations. But now, because I voted in the presidential primary and choose a Republican ballot (note: I voted for Nikki Haley), I am back on all of the fundraising lists. Because the state GOP shares its data with the RNC, I am now fair game for every GOP candidate in the U.S. asking me for money. How many Minnesotans choose not to vote just to avoid this scenario?

Both parties are complicit in this embarrassment, but I can’t help but be specifically disappointed in the Minnesota GOP that used to champion limited government and only spending tax dollars on things that benefit all Minnesotans.

Dave Thul, Owatonna, Minn.

In his commentary “Let Moriarty pursue her state trooper case without interference” (Opinion Exchange, March 28), Michael Collins states that Ricky Cobb II didn’t deserve the death penalty while ignoring state troopers and driving off. He says that Ryan Londregan’s life wasn’t in danger. Maybe not, but Londregan’s partner’s was, and that justified his use of deadly force. Collins ignored that critical fact.

Bob Miller, Minneapolis