Opinion editor's note: Star Tribune Opinion publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

Financial management of taxpayer dollars by Mayor Jacob Frey and the city of Minneapolis is completely out of control. Recently we learned from a lawsuit against the city that the Neighborhood Safety Office is accused of awarding $175,000 to an organization that lobbies the city on issues like housing and public safety and whose director was found liable for not paying back a $77,000 loan ("Suit: Mpls. illegally gave out millions," Nov. 10). In addition, according to the lawsuit, the city issued grants for over $1 million to officials who held political or advisory positions in Minneapolis, raising questions of preferential treatment. Frey is so pleased with the efforts of the Neighborhood Safety Office that he wants to raise their budget to $18 million next year from $2.7 million in 2020.

Now we find out ("Mpls. seeks to hire team on safety," Nov. 14) that the city is considering hiring a team from New York University Law School for $1 million over two years to figure out how to implement a public safety plan completed by a team from Harvard University! Good grief!

Nat Robbins, Minneapolis

•••

Regarding "Gun case tossed over traffic stop" (Nov. 14): Why wouldn't all criminals in Minneapolis just remove a headlight bulb on their vehicle to ensure they won't be pulled over by the police?

Jim R. Nachtsheim, Brooklyn Park

•••

Hats off to all the dedicated police officers on the Minneapolis force. Yes, there are problems, that's not what I want to talk about. My issue: How are assignments made? Are officers rotated regularly out of high-stress jobs to posts where there is less tension and frequency of confrontation? Living with the evilest-doers I expect must be wearing on one's psyche. Can cops be rotated to less-intense duty so that a mentality of distrust and disdain for the public doesn't grow and fester to a point where all encounters are perceived as a threat and the officer's attitude becomes hardened and bitter? Our police deserve a break, some "R&R," if you will, paying attention to their mental health and softening their immersion into the most awful among us. Regardless of the color of your skin, most of us are good people and the police need to feel and know that.

Ralph Yehle, Minneapolis

In response to "'Deep disappointment' over Xcel's new policy that restricts small solar" (StarTribune.com, Nov. 15): I'm proud to be Minnesotan when it comes to the clean energy transition. Every day, I read articles about the amazing work of legislators, nonprofits and businesses who are setting examples for our country in this space. Xcel has also contributed with plans to decarbonize the grid and develop more utility-scale solar. However, that's investor-owned, Xcel-balance-sheet, utility-scale solar.

It's time we realize this business model is not sustainable. As long as investor-owned utilities operate to create shareholder value, we will not meet our clean energy goals. We need companies like Xcel for more infrastructure, maintenance and planning to electrify our state. What we don't need is giants dictating the rules when there is a clear incentive to protect their monopoly.

People want to contribute to the clean energy movement. Residents like the Warwicks mentioned in the story are willing to contribute thousands to cover upfront costs of distributed energy systems on their property. How is it that we are failing to realize this grassroots movement? Xcel will continue delaying the transition because it's "not profitable." They would rather milk the Sherco Power Plant, build solar arrays in the western plains and build expensive transmission lines than optimize the voluntary local generation across the state. Maybe it's time we take the power back.

I believe we need to expand community solar legislation with a focus on the ground level. Xcel cannot continue to dictate the rules of the clean energy transition. We need to capitalize on the local interest to generate local power for local use. State grants cannot fund Xcel's shortcomings, but they can subsidize individuals and businesses who are investing in projects. The foundation for success is there; we just need policy and funding to support it and keep corporate interest off the table.

Luke Bendickson, Minneapolis

The front-page article, "Trump agenda if elected: Revenge" (Nov. 12) should serve as a warning to all of us who cherish American democracy. We cannot take our democracy for granted: Donald Trump is America's "dictator in waiting." If he wins the 2024 presidential election, he will get his chance to emulate his heroes: President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Supreme Leader of North Korea Kim Jong Un. And by the way, Kim Jong Un rules 26 million people, not 1.4 billion as Trump stated in a recent rally, no doubt confusing North Korea with China.

As the article states, Trump's governing agenda will focus on revenge for all his real or imagined political enemies; it sounds like he's planning a police state where he'll use the military to suppress public demonstrations. Under Trump, citizens will fear speaking out against his actions. A second Trump administration will be staffed with sycophants whose main role will be satisfying the needs of his fragile ego — not exactly in America's best interest in this increasingly complex and dangerous world.

Bill Steinbicker, Minnetonka

•••

A columnist tried to make the case that since Martin Scorsese, Bob Dylan and Stephen Sondheim still made art into their 80s, we should feel great giving octogenarian Joe Biden four more years as president ("Too old above 80? Tell that to Scorsese and Dylan. Tell it to Biden," StarTribune.com, Nov. 10). What a powerful thesis and well-executed argument. However, it doesn't go far enough. With the size and scope of the challenges America is facing, I really hope someone in their 90s — or better yet, 100 — jumps into this race. I read that leading the free world isn't too hard; it's like sitting on a stool for two hours a night and strumming a guitar.

Joe Widmer, Stillwater

•••

The debate about age in the presidential race is irrelevant. Only three years separate Biden and Trump, and Trump has had at least as many "age-adjacent" issues as Biden in recent weeks and months (not knowing where he was at a rally, thinking North Korea has more than 100 million people, etc., etc.). If age-related issues do arise, I am confident that Biden has inner circle people who won't let him go off the rails. Trump has no such guardrails. The past seven years prove that no one in his inner circle will ever stand up to him on anything. So, in a race between Biden and Trump, it boils down to voting for the Constitution or authoritarianism. Trump has proved that he does not care about the Constitution (being the only person to ever try to subvert the peaceful transfer of power per that Constitution), and a disturbingly large number of Republican members of Congress have proved that they will fall in line behind Trump as opposed to the Constitution on whatever he wants. In this circumstance, age is wholly irrelevant.

Tom Vollbrecht, Plymouth