Readers Write: Rethinking I-94, restaurant fees, IRS funding, Bob Kroll, animal welfare

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes letters from readers online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

In light of MnDOT’s recent announcement that Interstate 94 is not recommended to become a parkway, and a recent letter suggesting that Minneapolis and St. Paul should withhold municipal consent if it remains a freeway, it seems time for compromises that may ultimately serve all users’ needs better (“MnDOT: Keep I-94 a freeway, scrap parkway,” Dec. 21 and “Don’t bin the boulevard,” Readers Write, Jan. 1). I would suggest a “cap” over the freeway between Pascal Street and Western Avenue. Existing interchanges at Lexington and Dale, plus the on and off ramps near Hamline and Concordia would be removed. The Snelling and Marion/Kellogg interchanges would remain to serve the regional draws such as Allianz Field and access to downtown St. Paul. Numerous streets could be reconnected over the top of this cap, and development along a parkway (or even a pedestrian-focused spine) could occur, restitching the neighborhoods around the freeway. The cap would mitigate freeway noise from the adjacent residential neighborhoods and the removal of interchanges would improve traffic flow between the downtowns and create additional developable land.

A second cap could be considered between Cretin/Vandalia and Aldine Street, though the adjacent railroad and industrial uses in this area make this less beneficial and appealing.

This can bring a win-win to both adjacent neighborhoods that bear the negative effects of living near a freeway, and the critical nature of the freeway to people traveling between the downtowns.

Peter Vickerman, Minnetonka

The writer is a city planner.

The arguments made in the Dec. 31 article “End to service charges troubles restaurants” are absurd. What other business or business sector could get away with charging an after-the-fact, percentage-based fee under the guise of “It’s the only way we can pay our employees and provide benefits”? Could the Minnesota Star Tribune quote somebody $1,000 for an ad buy and then invoice them for $1,180, saying the fee is needed for such purposes? How about a grocery store, gas station or pharmacy — could they? Of course not. Beyond that, Jorge Guzmán of Chilango’s contention that raising prices isn’t a legitimate alternative because customers are too price conscious is even more ridiculous. His argument is essentially saying that if the restaurants are sneaky and bake it into the end bill we’ll pay it, but otherwise we won’t. Isn’t that akin to justifying fraud? They need to run their businesses like every other business in Minnesota, and if that doesn’t work, then I guess they need to get into another profession. But slipping in fees at the end of a transaction is just as fraudulent and misleading from them as it is from Ticketmaster.

John Prusak, New Hope

•••

All the controversy over requiring Minnesota restaurants to eliminate “hidden fees” by a new law seems to be a needless, intrusive, overregulation of restaurants. This law may be appropriate for other businesses, but it disrupts a solid restaurant model. First of all, these alleged “junk fees” are not hidden and they are fully explained as supporting staff equitably. Customers should be expected to add at least 18% to their bills as part of the cost of going out to eat; just stay at home to cook, clean up and serve yourself if you disagree! If you can’t afford it, don’t eat out.

Good employers pay fair wages and good team players share their tips, so this law is a needless intervention that serves no one. Unions form when working conditions become intolerable as employees maintain the upper hand, and they are always free to work elsewhere. The days of oppressed restaurant workers are long gone, as the competition for good help requires responsive management. The portion of our bills that go to health care or other benefits will now need to be added to food prices to come out the same. At least these higher menu prices will be perfectly clear to everyone!

Michael Tillemans, Minneapolis

Regarding the article “Another $20B is stripped from IRS” (Dec. 28), the irony here would be a bit amusing if the matter weren’t so serious. The zeal to cut funding from the agency that “polices” us to make sure we all pay our fair share is considerable and dedicated. As anti-tax guy Michael Palicz is quoted, “Republicans have taken a huge chunk out of this before, and we have a chance to do that again.” But it seems to me that much of this crowd was shouting their outrage when the left was vocally promoting defunding the police. And rightly so.

To be clear, no reasonable person would say that tax-dodging is equivalent to violent crime. However, when considering the broader impact upon the community, the distinction becomes less stark. When taxpayers pay their fair share, hopefully the government can fund programs that will improve the lives of the needy. As their circumstances are improved and their opportunities expanded, it’s reasonable to believe that the need to survive by resorting to criminal acts will be decreased. So then, the crowd that is generally pro “law and order,” the crowd that bristles at anything that will raise the national debt, is trying to weaken the tax cops. Irony indeed.

Richard Masur, Minneapolis

Two paragraphs into “Kroll seeks U.S. marshal post” (Dec. 31), I realized that Bob Kroll should be a lock for the incoming Trump administration’s pick for Minnesota U.S. marshal. That realization was bolstered with further reading.

While Kroll’s bio includes an MPD medal of valor, three medals of commendation and eight awards of merit, the dealmaker was his “lengthy disciplinary record, which included civil complaints and lawsuits involving wrongful arrest and excessive force.”

Also, Kroll’s description of Black Lives Matter as a “terrorist organization” should be irresistible to Donald Trump and serve to solidify his nomination.

Gene Case, Andover

•••

I wouldn’t appoint Kroll Sheriff of Nottingham.

Mark Warner, Minneapolis

A few weeks back, this newspaper ran an article on the wide array of financial and legal challenges facing SeaQuest, an Idaho-based animal attraction company with a location in Rosedale Center (“SeaQuest aquarium files for bankruptcy, faces state investigation,” Dec. 6).

Thank you for publishing this article. Additional public scrutiny of SeaQuest, which was founded in 2015 and has locations currently open in five states, is well warranted. The public should know that visiting SeaQuest puts animals, employees and guests in danger.

While the company claims it connects people to animals, facilitating educational experiences and stoking people’s passion for domestic animals and wildlife, reality is sadly much darker. Last year, ABC News reported that animals at various SeaQuest locations had bitten or scratched guests on at least 76 documented occasions since 2016.

Additionally, ex-employees of SeaQuest have come forward to speak with the media about the pressure they felt to sell premium interactive experiences, and even to cover up animal deaths and disease to protect the company’s reputation, saying they were scared of losing their jobs.

The list of investigations, violations and court documents alleging animal abuse continues to grow — from news media, the Humane Society, the USDA, state agencies and others.

Enough is enough. The public should know that continuing to patronize SeaQuest supports a business model that places no value on the welfare of humans or animals. No “educational experience” is worth that impeccably high cost.

Brian Wagenaar, Eden Prairie