Readers Write: Housing, Medicaid, criminal justice reform, pickleball courts

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

•••

Permanent supportive housing (Housing First) decreases homelessness, increases housing stability and improves the quality of life for people who are experiencing homelessness. This is achieved at an economic benefit that exceeds the intervention cost. That’s what the Community Preventive Services Task Force, an independent, nonfederal panel of public health and prevention experts, concluded after reviewing trials that evaluated the impact of providing permanent supportive housing. These findings are published in the Community Guide.

As the immediate past board chair of Face to Face Health & Counseling Inc. in St. Paul, I can testify that providing permanent housing for youths who are homeless or housing-unstable is critical if they are to overcome their other challenges. For these young people, it is hard to exaggerate the positive impact of permanent supportive housing, and testimony from Minnesota teens make it clear that they far prefer permanent housing to shelters.

I appreciate the connections Khalique Rogers made between affordable housing, education and workforce development in his Jan. 5 commentary (“Enough of the shortsighted solutions to reduce homelessness”), and I suggest that people urge the governor and legislators to make permanent affordable housing a top priority in 2025. As has recently been pointed out, this is the kind of creative, results-oriented action Minnesota needs if it is to continue to be a wealthy state.

Thomas Kottke, St. Paul

The writer is a member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Community Preventive Services Task Force.

Arguments to “cut out health care middlemen” by a Jan. 5 letter writer gloss over some real needs of people on Medicaid and the real work the private insurance companies do to implement those needs. The writer states eliminating these “middlemen” would not have any negative consequences and that having members choose fee-for-service (FFS) Medicaid would somehow lead to better quality of care without any support for this argument. I don’t see the Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) as middlemen but as partners delegated the work of improving or maintaining members’ health. If we reduce medical costs without meeting the health needs of members, we as a society have not met one of our most basic responsibilities. For argument’s sake, how does the FFS program support patients better than MCOs when:

1) FFS programs cannot pay for benefits outside of the Medicaid benefit set? MCOs can offer car seats, dental cleanings and fitness benefits as examples that improve member health.

2) FFS cannot reimburse for nonmedical services? Managed care addresses social drivers of health. For example, MCOs can provide members access to support services such as meal delivery and food support, programs to reduce isolation for seniors, discharge support for members who are unhoused and bringing care directly to members through mobile clinics.

These examples were taken from a Minnesota Council of Health Plans fact sheet (tinyurl.com/mc-vs-ffs). I see the change recommended by the letter writer as hasty.

Linda Sandbo, St. Louis Park

The writer is a former actuary for UCare Minnesota.

•••

I agree with the Jan. 5 letter writer — why shouldn’t Medicaid patients be able to choose whose care they are under? It also seems irresponsible of the state to throw away extra tens of millions of dollars per year on health care being provided by profit-driven insurance companies. The writer has my vote for common sense and fiscal responsibility!

Rick Rayburn, Finlayson, Minn.

Anoka County wants to more than double the size of its jail, from 240 to 540 beds (“Anoka County, city deadlocked over jail,” Jan. 5). While they are arguing about where to put it, I have another question: Why do it? Violent crime is down. And since the old jail was built, many resources have developed that are alternatives to jail: treatment centers for addiction, electronic home monitoring, mental health services. I hope, before they buy a single brick for the new incarceration building, they look at every single person in jail now with the question, ”Does this person really need to be here?” Some people are in jail because they can’t afford bail of $200. Should Anoka build a new jail for them? Or nonviolent drug addicts? Maybe the desire is to attract tourists — ”Visit Anoka! Our jail is twice as big now!” — but there might be a better way.

John Stuart, Minneapolis

The writer is former state public defender.

I’m writing in response to the Jan. 5 article “A clash of park and recreation.” I live two miles from Alimagnet Lake and have walked my dogs there off and on for over 30 years.

I attended the Nov. 18 Alimagnet Pickleball Open House at Burnsville City Hall because, though I applaud providing more places for people to play pickleball, I firmly believe the planned location is a mistake. Per the Burnsville restoration draft plan, Alimagnet Park is recognized as one of Burnsville’s most treasured natural parks. Significant restoration and management investments have been made at the park over the decades, including prairie restoration and enhancement of the park’s oak forests and woodlands. But, much of the land that was originally slated to remain natural has already been devolved to provide baseball fields and a dog park. Adding eight pickleball courts and an adjacent parking lot, even one with an impermeable surface, will further damage an already ailing lake. The noise and light pollution will further disrupt both the local flora and fauna. This hardly fits with the goal of restoration and enhancement.

As I said, I support providing more space for pickleball. I spoke with many of the pickleball players who attended the meeting. None of them were opposed to the idea of relocating the courts as long as they remained in Burnsville. I asked, and none knew if an indoor location had been considered or investigated. All I asked about it felt an indoor location would be more suitable, since it could be used year-round. The Burnsville Mall might be interested and it would be a great location. It has tons of empty space, lots of parking, and installing pickleball courts there would bring in lots of much-needed foot traffic. I also know other cities have converted unused hockey rinks or repainted tennis courts so they could be multipurpose.

I assumed a “listening session” meant that the City Council was open to revisiting the decision. I think Joni Mitchell said it best:

“Don’t it always seem to go / That you don’t know what you’ve got ′til it’s gone.”

Nika Davies, Apple Valley

•••

Remember turning the Fort Snelling polo grounds into permanent softball diamonds with permanent lights and fences? Remember that they are rarely ever used today? Think about the current rush to turn parks into pickleball courts and try to think about their use 10 years from now ... a time, like the rush for softball a few years back, when the players today age and find other activities that are more age appropriate.

Going from fad to fad providing permanent facilities removes parks from their purpose of providing recreation to all folks (and wastes money on only a small minority of citizens).

John Reay, St. Paul