"The time is always right to do what is right," the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1965. We have to stop Minneapolis police violence against Black people. Passage of the City Question 2 on the November ballot — a charter amendment that would create a Department of Public Safety, combining the Police Department with public health strategies — would facilitate culture change and allow for potential future funding of prevention strategies to ensure safety for all.

The mayor and City Council currently have little control over the Police Department budget because the city charter requires 17 police officers be hired per 10,000 people. There is little room to fund prevention and public health strategies because of the charter mandate on police hires. It is rare for a city charter to mandate police hiring levels. The Minneapolis mandate was put in place in 1961 with support from the police union. But data consistently show that an increased number of police officers doesn't reduce crime.

Passage of City Question 2 would not defund the police, because the department's budget is funded by city ordinance. The Police Department would remain and be led by a new commissioner of public safety. City Council action would be required to change the budget or police chief.

Passage of the Question 2 would eliminate the straitjacket of the current charter police officer hiring mandate, providing flexibility for future funding of public health and violence prevention efforts.

Change is long overdue. Let's move forward toward a more just and safe community.

Marie Franchett, Minneapolis

•••

I can't thank mayoral candidate Kate Knuth enough (Opinion Exchange, Sept. 9) for articulating how the proposed Minneapolis charter amendment could be used by the right mayor to address racial violence in policing, as well as the overuse of policing for nonviolent crime. Opponents of the amendment seem to be hung up on their issues with individual City Council members or rely on scare tactics about the end of police. Kate nails it: The amendment merely puts Minneapolis on a common footing with other large cities, which have the flexibility to address public safety in a more comprehensive manner. A "no" vote is essentially a vote for the status quo — to remain a city unique in its overall livability but also in its racial disparities. If we believe Black Lives Matter, then we need to vote "yes" to change our city charter and for candidates willing to explore a public safety future that's more than armed officers.

John Farrell, Minneapolis

•••

I'm amazed at the amount of controversy over just the language and wording of the upcoming ballot proposal ("Waiting game on policing ballot," front page, Sept. 10). Imagine the potential implications of these legal proceedings over just this seemingly simple first step.

First, there will need to be many decisions to be made if this proposal were to pass, such as all the nuts and bolts of the structure of the organization, how it's to be implemented, and a system for dealing with all the forthcoming problems and issues as they arise.

Second, if there were to be many "bosses" and decisionmakers, as contentions arise, how are these issues ever going to be resolved with any urgency on a timely basis? I can only imagine running a 10K through a field of mud! It's hard to imagine how inefficient this governmental structure would become.

Unfortunately, truth be told, in some cases, too much democracy is terribly inefficient and really doesn't work.

Bruce Burton, Bloomington

•••

Whenever I read a comment from (particularly) white people extolling the virtues of the Yes 4 Minneapolis potential charter amendment, I really want to know where they live. If they live in the midst of the shootings (Don Samuels' neighborhood) and chaos, I'd love to have a conversation about their specific plan for keeping us all safe, responding to murders, shootings, carjackings, etc. Seriously. What is it? How long will it take to implement? Who responds to what kind of call under what circumstances? Where will you get the responders? How will they be trained? So many questions.

If you don't live in the areas most impacted by the current "spike in crime," please sell your house and move into one of the affected neighborhoods. I think Samuels' block probably has some good deals. Otherwise, I don't hear you.

Jeanne Torma, Minneapolis

•••

If I hear the claim one more time that American policing is descended from slave catchers (Readers Write, Sept. 6), my head may explode. It is not true.

Modern American policing began in Boston in 1838, descended from Sir Robert Peel's "bobbies" of London founded in 1829. (The police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties that are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.)

Were slave catchers employed by the government? Did they enforce all laws? Did they wear a uniform and badge as police did in London and Boston? Did they patrol on foot and horseback to keep the peace? The answer to these questions is no. Slave catchers were closer to bounty hunters.

There are many intractable problems with modern American policing. Pernicious assertions do not help find solutions. They are more akin to President Donald Trump's claims that the election was stolen. If you say something enough times, some number of people will take it as gospel.

Gregory Scott Hestness, Minneapolis

The writer is a retired University of Minnesota police chief and Minneapolis deputy chief.

I'm writing this letter because I struggle to understand how it is possible that in "the land of the free" people who can become pregnant are treated as second-class citizens who can't be trusted to make private medical decisions about their reproductive health and futures.

As a Latina woman who grew up in a largely conservative town in Mexico, I know how terrifying and dehumanizing it can be to have very limited options if you have an unwanted pregnancy.

The Mexican Supreme Court voted this month to decriminalize abortion, changing the future of millions of Mexicans, including those already accused and incarcerated. This is a huge deal for the world's second-largest Catholic country. With facts in hand, leaders finally recognized the dignity and freedom to decide when and how a person starts a family.

While the news in Mexico is good, I'm deeply worried about the United States and all the people affected by the new Texas abortion law. I've seen the consequences of not being able to access a safe and legal abortion. I have seen the desperation and the pain caused by this type of invasive law. And believe me, it only opens the doors for clandestine procedures that put the lives of the most vulnerable people at risk.

No one should feel entitled to control someone's else body. This is about reclaiming that freedom you're promised to have in America.

Mariana Soriano, Shorewood

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