PUBLIC SAFETY
We need both policing and community-based solutions
There seems to be an attitude that police funding is an "either/or" situation. Either the money goes to the police, or it goes to community-based solutions. Why? Substitution is not a proven path to success, it's a desperation move.
The more rational approach is to run both groups in parallel. We need to fully fund the police because, frankly, the need has never been greater. We can also fund community-based solutions because we want to test their effectiveness.
I don't see how any serious community leader could ever contemplate gambling on public safety. If you screw up public safety, then we are all dead.
Jack Kohler, Plymouth
•••
You have my thanks for the Sept. 2 editorial "Trusted voices oppose Mpls. police gambit," about the position of Don and Sondra Samuels regarding the public safety charter amendment question. It is clear to me that attention must be paid to respected leaders of their community telling us their point of view about that community.
I completely agree with Sondra Samuels' comment that both police reform and police presence to curb violence are necessary. The problem with the ballot question is that it is about only one side of the issue with no specificity on how to implement change. There must be more effort to find the both/and way toward a public safety solution that respects the need for the safety of each and every person in Minneapolis. I would like more attention paid to the charter amendment question regarding the structure of city government. This proposed change might allow the public safety question to find an answer.
Sylvia Moore, Minneapolis