Readers Write: Minneapolis City Council, government spending, remote work, CEO’s killing, Jordan Neely

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

•••

I read with interest Emily Koski’s stated reasons for running against Mayor Jacob Frey in next year’s upcoming mayoral election (“We can build a Minneapolis that reflects who we are,” Strib Voices, Dec. 6). She says property taxes have risen too high but she wants the city to spend more taxpayer money on homelessness. She says Mayor Frey sets up too many task forces and work groups but then, on the City Council, she recently voted to override Mayor Frey’s veto of a new city-funded labor standards board that will only have an advisory role. She says Mayor Frey is doing a poor job of recruiting new police officers but then scares off potential new police hires by describing our existing police force as in need of “police reform” and “public safety transformation.” She says that Mayor Frey is engaged in “deliberate efforts to divide us and pit us against each other” but she is about “building bridges” and “bringing people together.”

Mayor Frey has never been the darling of Minneapolis DFL lefty base. He won re-election four years ago without gaining the DFL endorsement. I suspect what Koski is now doing in her campaign is not “building bridges” to the average Minneapolis voter but “building bridges” to the lefty voters at the upcoming DFL city endorsement convention.

Philip Jacobson, Minneapolis

•••

Let’s be clear about what Mayor Frey, the Minneapolis Regional Chamber, the Minneapolis Downtown Council, Hospitality Minnesota, the Minnesota Retailers Association and the National Restaurant Association, among others, have done (“City Council fails to override mayoral veto,” Dec. 6). They have all denied employees and community stakeholders the opportunity to talk with employers about wages, working conditions, safety concerns and other issues of importance to employees and the community. That’s all the Labor Standards Board was proposing. But according to the business community and the mayor, employees and the community shouldn’t have the right to talk.

The proposed Labor Standards Board had no authority to do anything other than develop recommendations for the City Council to consider. Not able to deal truthfully with this proposal, local business and “outside agitators” like the National Restaurant Association resorted — as usual — to distortion and scare tactics. For example, as John Edwards noted in the Nov. 22 Wedge Times-Picayune, KSTP characterized the Labor Standards Board in a newscast last month as “a government body overseeing wages, benefits, and training” that would “enforce requirements concerning wages and benefits.” We need to recognize this for what it is: calculated exaggeration without any basis in fact.

Many, perhaps most of us in Minneapolis, believe we can build together a city where all can thrive and where all voices are heard with respect and thoughtful consideration. The struggle continues. Join us for a better future for all of us.

Fred Smith, Minneapolis

Harry S. Truman’s famous quote, “The buck stops here,” apparently is not in Gov. Tim Walz or Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan’s vocabulary. Since the 2018 election, they have supposedly been in charge when it comes to the various state departments but either ignore or blame someone else when their employees continually mess up. Let’s review a few: In 2019 the Minnesota Department of Human Services was found to have overpaid $29 million to Native American tribes; in 2023 the Minnesota Department of Education’s lack of oversight was found to have played a role in the $250 million Feeding our Future fraud fiasco; and in 2024 the Department of Human Services is back in the limelight with the lax collection of more than $40 million owed to the state from medical providers (“Medical bill collection lax at DHS, audit says,” Dec. 11). Waste in government is one thing, but to continue to let their departments run amok is another.

Robert Lommel, Minnetonka

In a Dec. 6 commentary, “It’s time for Congress to work from home,” Alan Bengtson lists several advantages to having Congress work remotely, such as the cost savings achieved by reduced travel time and Capitol operations. Yes, these could be significant, and there could be other benefits — although I don’t agree with Bengtson’s view that officials would spend more time with citizens. They’d just be fundraising from a local, not national, office.

He does not, address, however, a great downside of working remotely: the reduction in relationships and collaboration among Congressional representatives and senators. It has been established in the private sector that having employees work at home reduces the informal interaction that can lead to innovation and working relationships. Remote work reduces creativity because of this lack of interaction. Collaboration and relationship-building are essential among officials if we hope to have any bipartisan action on anything.

Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch were best friends in the Senate, despite their ideological differences, for the simple reason that they spent time together. Would that have been the case if they only saw each other on a computer screen?

Nic Baker, Roseville

I, and I trust all of us, are grateful that the alleged assassin of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson has been taken into custody, and that the diligent and extensive police work that led to his arrest was successful (”Manhunt ends with arrest,” Dec. 10). However, I can’t help but think that the police effort would be orders of magnitude smaller if an unemployed, perhaps nonwhite 19-year-old were shot from behind in a poor neighborhood. Only when the police effort in both instances becomes similar can we truly be a country where citizens and their families receive equal treatment under our laws. Otherwise, we will remain a country where the wealthy and privileged receive special treatment from our government.

Peter Hairston, St. Paul

The following is a Dec. 9 PBS News Hour narrative of this regrettable story, followed by an account of a similar, but not as tragic, experience of mine about a decade ago:

“Jordan Neely was a homeless man who struggled with mental illness. On the day he died, he entered a crowded subway car, yelling that he was hungry, thirsty, and ready to die or go to jail. That’s when another passenger, Daniel Penny, took him to the ground in a choke hold that lasted for almost six minutes. When Penny let go, Neely was unresponsive. He was later pronounced dead at a hospital.”

My experience had similar emotional dynamics but a much happier ending. It occurred in the reception area of a counseling practice, where I awaited my appointment. Soon after, a young man arrived, dressed in scruffy clothes and agitated because the phone near the entry wasn’t working. No one, including the receptionists, was paying attention to him — probably because he scared them. Naturally, the more everyone ignored him, the worse his agitation became.

He soon sat down face-to-face with me. So I asked him who he wanted to call. It turned out he was late for his appointment and wanted to call his counselor (this sheds some light on how the most basic communications — like talking with a receptionist — can be short-circuited by a panic attack or some other emotional malady). Once that bit of clarity surfaced, his counselor came through the door and he was at peace with himself and the world once again.

Dean Ekola, Roseville

•••

It concerns me more than anything that the other riders in that subway car on that fateful day seemingly did nothing (“Veteran acquitted in NYC subway death,” Dec. 10). Certainly, they must have realized the peril in which Penny had placed Neely. Wouldn’t a simple, “Hey I think you’ve calmed him down!” possibly have saved a life and a lot of anguish? But then again, it was New York, and someone would have had to have made eye contact.

Fred Rau, Hugo