On June 10, Mayor Jacob Frey publicly proposed setting aside $28 million of the $271 million in recovery funds the city of Minneapolis is expected to receive under the federal American Rescue Plan (ARP) for affordable housing and rental assistance purposes ("Frey wants to direct $28M in relief money toward housing," June 11). This is a worthy start; however, Minneapolis should go further. Creating mere "affordable housing" looks good on a political resume, but as many can attest, affordability is important but not the end-all. Housing may be affordable, but it may be infested with pests or mold, have ongoing maintenance issues, lack access to grocery stores and, more often than not, be across town from the city's best schools and safest neighborhoods. There is a lack of affordable housing in Minneapolis. But more than that, there is a lack of housing that offers to meet a resident's holistic needs.

The interim final rule issued by the secretary of the Treasury with regard to ARP notes that pre-existing social inequalities have been magnified by the COVID-19 pandemic and gives cities broad discretion to put fiscal recovery funds toward affordable housing. As Minneapolis decides how to spend this federal money, we should stress the need for fair and decent affordable housing, which should go beyond creation of "affordable housing" for political kudos and should even go beyond increased access to rental housing to provide greater avenues for homeownership, especially among our neighbors who are Black, Indigenous and people of color. In an article published on Feb. 25 of this year, the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis demonstrated in clear detail the gaps in homeownership between white and nonwhite Minnesotans as a result of systematic housing discrimination and these gaps' relation to Minnesota's staggeringly high racial wealth gaps. Federal handouts related to property ownership have been wildly successful at helping individuals build generational wealth. Note, for example, the Homestead Act of 1862. Tragically, however, these handouts were historically distributed by the hand of white supremacy, and as much as they benefited their recipients, the inverse was largely true for Black and Indigenous people and other people of color.

Here, Minneapolis has impending access to over a quarter-billion dollars' worth of federal funds and has an immense opportunity to put these funds to work for the benefit of the city's residents who historically have been denied the seeds of generational wealth and fair, decent, affordable housing.

David LaBerge, Minneapolis

•••

I was reading the article "Rent petition in St. Paul's hands" (June 16) regarding a petition/request to put a 3% cap on rent increases on the ballot. Those organizing the petition spoke to thousands of renters, thousands of homeowners and thousands of people who live in St. Paul.

I did not see where they spoke to any landlords — you know, those who actually provide the rental units. With the 3% cap, what happens if there is a property tax increase over 3%? What happens if there is an insurance increase over 3%? What happens if there is an energy increase over 3%? What happens if there is an increase in materials needed to maintain and repair rental units over 3%? Under the proposal, landlords could apply for exemptions, but that sounds to me as if the landlords will have to eat the losses caused by the 3% cap.

Rent control could provide a limited income for landlords, which might prevent the landlords from improving the rental units. And if the rents are controlled or capped, landlords may decide not to rent out those units, which could mean fewer rental units available. Doesn't sound to me like that would encourage people wanting to invest in rental property in St. Paul.

If St. Paul really wants to be able to control rents, maybe it should get into the apartment rental business.

Mike McLean, Richfield

•••

I'm responding to the thoughtful letter "Progress, but still a long way to go" (Readers Write, June 8) regarding disparities in wealth between white and Black Americans. The cited Fed Notes report points out one factor in wealth differences is homeownership. For most Americans, home equity is the largest source of wealth. Minneapolis has the greatest disparity of any major city in the U.S. at 50 percentage points, according to the Urban Institute's "Mapping the Black homeownership gap" from February 2018. White people here, according to that report, have a homeownership rate of 74.8% vs. Black people with 24.8%. There may be several factors in play, both historical (such as redlining) and due to supply. Laws of economics still apply — restrictive zoning increases the cost of production and skews developer incentives toward fewer, more expensive construction projects. That is within the power of the local government to address.

John Moroney, St. Paul

The piece by John Kass from the Chicago Tribune ("There's no birthing person in all the world like that dear old birthing person of mine," Opinion Exchange, June 17) is, at the very least, provocative. I wonder, however, whether in the end it is just a tempest in a teapot.

Kass bemoans the arrival of a seemingly politically correct phrase "birthing person ... by the federal government, by some scientists and by the left." There is certainly some truth in the adage that "It takes a village to raise a child." It is also certain as marginalized communities and individuals begin to be recognized and develop a voice that we all are becoming more and more aware of atypical approaches to pregnancy, labor and delivery that provide people who otherwise would not have had the opportunity to have a child the opportunity to do so. Unfortunately, the speed with which these opportunities are discovered and developed is not matched by social phenomena, particularly language.

My own politics lean pretty far to the left, but I do not think that matters much in this issue. I suspect that scientists who are seeking financial support from the federal government will adopt this language with rapidity. For broader society, some comfort with new phraseology will come with its use, and the people whose lives are affected by these problems may begin to be more genuinely accepted. But in all likelihood, as is the case with all language, this will be a changing arena, probably rapidly, and we have almost certainly not heard the last word on it.

John D. Tobin Jr., St. Paul

•••

I just read John Kass' commentary against using the term "birthing person" to describe the set of all people who give birth, which, of course, includes not only women, but also trans men and nonbinary people. He wants "mother" for everyone.

What's next? Will Kass write a call to action for men offended by the existence of the terms "firefighter" and "postal worker"?

Matthew Byrnes, Minneapolis