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

•••

Regarding the article in Thursday's paper "St. Paul nears new housing rent-control exemption": I attended that City Council hearing where those decisions were made, and I am deeply disappointed in how the rent stabilization ordinance has become unrecognizable from what was passed in the referendum last November. I fear it will poorly serve those renters who want to stay in their homes and need stability to do so.

The amended ordinance now allows for vacancy decontrol, which was not in the original, and now landlords are free to reset rents with no limits once a unit is vacated. Another amendment makes affordable housing units exempt from the 3% rent cap. Does that make any sense? If anyone needs the rent cap, it's the very people who live in those affordable housing units. I have a friend who lives in one of those affordable senior housing complexes. Her rent just went up by 8%, and she is on a fixed income and thinks she will have to move now.

Finally, the council extended the exemption for new construction from 15 to 20 years, an exemption that extends back 20 years. This will exempt thousands of housing units from rent stabilization. I served on the mayor's working group, comprising tenants, landlords and developers. We met weekly for six months to come to some agreement on how the ordinance should be implemented. We didn't always see eye to eye, but one thing we reached a consensus on was a 15-year exemption for new construction, which the mayor also recommended.

All of these changes fly in the face of the needs of the renters in this city, and the will of 53% of its voters who asked for rent stabilization last November. The current ordinance as it stands is ineffective in helping renters stay in their homes for the long term. I reject it and I ask that the City Council vote no on passing this new and completely inadequate version of the rent stabilization law.

Arline Lansangan Datu, St. Paul

Two recent stories, one about the lack of controls and compliance for the distribution of taxpayer funds at the Department of Human Services and the other about the continually expanding budget and delayed completion of the Southwest light rail, raise serious concerns about how the government works for citizens ("DHS boss pledges to do better," Sept. 9, and "Light-rail project still needs funds," Sept. 9).

Let's take DHS. The largest agency in the state has a pattern of poor practices when it comes to management and distribution of taxpayer funds. Its leader's response? "We have been working diligently ... to improve" these processes since 2019. What function in state government had oversight on these improvements? Is it reasonable to expect, three years later, for an actual improvement to take place? How does any leader survive this failure of execution and management?

Light rail cost overruns and delay should come as no surprise to those who are realistic. These major projects seem to always be late and over budget. And yet, we blindly believe in the promises made. They are made, of course, to get the project approved, because who in their right mind would approve something costing twice as much and taking twice as long? Please, Star Tribune, publish a section reviewing the promises, budgets and timeline commitments by Metropolitan Council leaders and state government leaders since its inception. It would be instructive.

Good government is not solely about the ability to approve budgets (see federal COVID relief of nearly $4.3 trillion) although this is a requirement. Where we are failing is in monitoring and measuring how the money is spent. Who is setting the goals for outcomes of the spending and "investments" of taxpayer money? Who is holding government departments accountable? Who is summarizing the outcomes and scoring their successes or failures? In short, who is keeping score, objectively?

Our failure to make the money we pay in taxes more productive makes citizens like me want to see the majority of the state surplus returned, proportionally to all taxpayers, rather than invested without accountability.

Mark Hayes, Chanhassen

•••

The Star Tribune editorial criticizing the state DHS for its failures in managing the pandemic-related, mental health and child care grant processes might have considered some additional factors ("Human Services in trouble yet again," Sept. 8).

I spent much of my 20-plus years managing state and county human services programs going into situations like these and attempting to restore order. In my experience the solutions to problems are not as obvious as the Office of the Legislative Auditor would make it seem.

I would want to know more before concluding that there is a chronic failure of management at DHS. Does the department really have enough staff with the right skills to do the job? Was it under political pressures rush things? Perhaps the Legislature and the public share some accountability for this failure.

If OLA staff were required to serve for one year in a government-line position, I suspect their reports would present a more detailed analysis of issues like these.

Rich Gehrman, St. Paul

In an unprecedented declaration, a Florida district court judge has concluded a "special master" is needed to review executive branch property for executive privilege so that the executive branch can access executive branch materials that it owns. A judge has stopped a criminal investigation resulting from a lawful court-ordered search so this bizarre scenario can play out ("Order for special master is, on the whole, reasonable," and "Special master order is potentially disastrous," Opinion Exchange, Sept. 8). This is not just unprecedented and legally dubious, but profoundly nonsensical.

And it gets worse. A special master would require the highest security clearance to review all the highly classified documents, which were recovered from an unsecured beach resort that the former president left months ago for the summer. The documents likely originated in and should be under the control of the National Security Agency, CIA, FBI, the National Reconnaissance Office, the Department of Defense and many others. These materials are sensitive compartmented information within agencies, and often not even shared between agencies.

And now, a district court judge has assumed the authority to appoint someone who will need all these highest clearances. All this so a lawful criminal investigation can proceed. And get this, the appointee could possibly be someone recommended by the person who allegedly stole the materials, kept them in an unsecured location, moved and concealed them to avoid discovery, left them potentially subject to hostile foreign intelligence actors, lied about their presence and resisted returning them to their rightful owner despite repeated, intensifying efforts.

David Pederson, Excelsior

The pending closing of Schatzlein Saddle Shop brought back many memories for me, because my office, the Model City Communications Center, was located at 4th Avenue S. and Lake Street in the 1970s, and I lived at Lake Street and Portland Avenue ("Lessons from a business closing," editorial, Sept. 6). But my great-grandfather was also an immigrant, an Irish pioneer, who operated a saddle shop on Lyndale Avenue N. in the late 1800s. He won first prize for a horse collar at the Chicago World's Fair in 1893, and he and his sons went on to establish one of the most respected saddle shops in the West — the Connolly Saddle Shop in Billings, Mont. (still open today). John B. Connolly was an Irish patriot who joined the Fenians, fought for Irish independence, and also fought in the Irish Papal Brigade. John was an advocate for justice for native tribes and had a close relationship with tribal leaders in Montana. His children probably would have known the Schatzlein family. I'm sad to see this landmark close its doors.

David Feehan, Silver Spring, Md.