If the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board shares its lobbyist's tainted view of regional parks in Minneapolis, constituents need to set commissioners straight.
Last week, the MPRB lobbyist urged a room filled with other lobbyists, regional parks staff, locally elected officials and state representatives to oppose the "Legacy of Nature" bill. He claimed that shifting legacy spending toward natural resources would not bode well for Minneapolis parks because there are no forests, no prairies and no wetlands on Minneapolis parklands.
In truth, our Minneapolis parks include many acres of woodlands, bird sanctuaries, savanna and oak forests, prairies and even a quaking bog. Our lakes, ponds, forests, prairies and wetlands are home to a rich diversity of plants and wildlife, including rare, endangered and threatened species, and they offer critical habitat for bees, butterflies and birds. Many volunteers contribute thousands of hours every year to help tend these areas.
These natural resources are degraded and at risk of further degradation by lack of management of terrestrial and aquatic invasive species, and also by the seemingly endless desire to expand the built environment within our nature-based parks.
I urge voters, commissioners and legislators to support the "Legacy of Nature" bills, HF 2703 and SF 3511.
Michael Hauser, Minneapolis
DAYLIGHT SAVINGS
How about a half-hour compromise?
I was surprised to read in the daylight saving time article that there are only two options being considered for a permanent change ("Time may be short for time change," March 5). Last year I wrote to our senators and in the Star Tribune regarding a third option — split the difference. Go forward half an hour in the spring and leave it. I realize in some circles "compromise" is a dirty word, but I am surprised that the article did not consider that as an option. You get a little less light in the evening in the summer and a little less light in the morning in the winter.
I think it makes sense to split the difference. I don't know if the studies that talked about biorhythms considered moving 30 minutes. Why does it have to be daylight savings or not — what is the magic about moving a full hour? If you look at times around the world, there are some that are 30 minutes different from ours. If we are really serious about getting rid of daylight savings and keeping the same time year around, shouldn't we at least consider splitting the difference?
Steve Hawrysh, Aitkin, Minn.
POLITICS
Socialists lose, but their ideas don't
A recent letter to the editor about how socialist candidates fail to get elected got it half right ("Socialism has a long history in our country — as do its electoral failures," March 6). The candidates may not win, but their ideas do. And candidates who oppose those ideas often lose.

