I read with a great deal of interest the article in Sunday's Star Tribune titled "How suburb became hub of Jewish life" (Feb. 27), which tells the story of the migration of North Side Jewish families to the suburb of St. Louis Park in the 1967 timeframe.

My family lived on Plymouth Avenue, and my father had a small grocery store on the avenue. While the topic of the article is in many ways relevant to the racial unrest we are experiencing today in many cities, it is way off base in its attack on the Jewish people and businesses that were living and operating on the North Side at the time. The individual in the article who says that Jews moved out because low-income Black people were moving in is just plain wrong, and he offers no support for that claim. The main reason Jewish families and businesses left the North Side was the rioting and looting that were part of the race riots that swept across American cities during the summer of 1967. The author of the article herself doesn't dispute this fact, but she suggests that the north Minneapolis riots were the result of Black residents "facing mistreatment and discrimination from police and Jewish business owners." Wrong. All news reports at the time, which were mainly in the Star Tribune, make clear that the rioting and destruction of Jewish-owned businesses on Plymouth Avenue was ignited by an incident of police brutality that occurred at the Aquatennial Torchlight Parade, not by mistreatment of Black residents by Jewish businessmen. Most of the Plymouth Avenue businesses that I was familiar with welcomed patronage from all corners, Black people included.

Ronald Haskvitz, Golden Valley

•••

I read with interest Sunday's Curious Minnesota article, "How suburb became hub of Jewish life." First, I was intrigued why someone would ask that question. Have similar questions been raised about demographic changes in other neighborhoods/suburbs in the Twin Cities; for example, how did the neighborhoods north of Broadway become predominantly African American? Second, the answer to this question is far more complex than the one the writer provides, but it is understandable that space limited her response. However, one statement she does include must be questioned. It is her description of the strained relationship between Black and Jewish residents worsening as a result, according to her, of Blacks "facing mistreatment and discrimination from police and Jewish business owners." It is her including Jewish business owners that is particularly troubling. Reporters, and their editors, must be held accountable when they allow unattributed, unsubstantiated inflammatory statements such as this to be published. The editors of the Star Tribune owe their readers an explanation for including this accusation without providing an attribution as to its source.

Marilyn J. Chiat, Minnetonka

I am constantly amazed at how certain politicians want to turn transient budget surpluses into permanent tax cuts. It makes absolutely no sense.

Thank you, D.J. Tice, for a very clear explanation that eliminating taxes on Social Security income also makes no sense ("Minnesotans need a break, but not on Social Security," Opinion Exchange, Feb. 27). Certainly low-income individuals should pay little or no tax. But not everyone.

Gary Fifield, St. Paul

•••

I would suggest that D.J. Tice is looking through the wrong end of the binoculars in his column supporting the taxation of Social Security benefits. He might correct that perspective by starting with the preamble to the Social Security Act setting forth its objectives which provides that it is:

"An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws ... ."

There is nothing in that preamble or the act itself suggesting that part of the benefits provided should be used to raise federal or state revenue for other purposes. And because it was intended to make a "more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons," etc., it is difficult to see how reduction of those benefits through taxation contributes to those objectives.

It was not until 1983 that Social Security benefits became taxable under a bill signed by President Ronald Reagan for the purpose of cutting benefits and raising revenues, and the taxes collected were dedicated to the Social Security Fund not to raise general revenues or, as Tice suggests, to provide for some imagined equity among state taxpayers.

Until 1983 Social Security benefits were specifically excluded from income taxation, and the 1983 amendment was intended to help improve the solvency of the Social Security Trust Funds — and state taxation certainly provides none. And it should be noted that any trust fund solvency concerns can be solved by simply eliminating the cap on the income amount on which Social Security taxes are paid, which would also eliminate the inequity in favor of the wealthy that the cap enshrines. But that is a whole different issue.

Bernard P. Friel, Mendota Heights

•••

"Minnesotans need a break, but not on Social Security" should be a must-read for members of the Minnesota Legislature! Over the past decade, retirement incomes for Americans and Minnesotans have risen to put many well into the six-digit income level with pensions, 401(k)s, annuities and many combinations of retirement income. If the Legislature is so insistent on excluding state income tax on Social Security benefits, draw the line at those with $50,000 or less in income. Then those with hefty retirement incomes can still survive and still be able to collect, over the retirement years, more than they paid into Social Security during their working years!

Charles D. Davidson, Mora, Minn.

Kudos to the reporter and the Star Tribune for the front-page article, "COVID-19 still poses a risk for millions." My wife and I were very disappointed to hear of the recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention decision to relax its masking guidance, and it was heartening to have our concerns reflected in the paper.

We have an immunocompromised family member. Consequently, my wife and I are tremendously careful about our potential exposure. We have mostly refrained from being unmasked indoors with anyone outside our "bubble." This has greatly limited enjoying activities with colleagues and friends like going to shows or having coffee. It's also made us judicious about trips to the grocery, drugstore or hardware store.

When we do venture out, we are grateful for personnel and patrons wearing masks, even when not asked to do so. Likely many of those individuals are fully vaccinated and boosted, and risk to themselves is actually low. But they still mask up. This is a gesture of respect and consideration for others, not only for those who may be more vulnerable, but for our health care workers who deal with the heartbreaking consequences of COVID-19 on a daily basis.

We're as tired as most people of the hardships and inconveniences we've endured these past few years. But the pandemic isn't over yet, despite recent improvement. Masking up for a while longer is a very small but important thing we can do to help keep relatives, friends and neighbors safe.

Bob Patton, Plymouth

We want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts here.