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

•••

As a triple board-certified psychiatrist specializing in addiction medicine, adult psychiatry, and child and adolescent psychiatry, I want to address the harmful implications of public cannabis use as described in the article "Cities examine public cannabis use" (front page, July 25).

Unrestricted public cannabis use poses significant risks to Minnesota's children. Data from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) shows that states with commercialized adult cannabis use experienced higher youth usage. This normalization effect occurs when young people regularly witness adults using cannabis, leading them to perceive it as safe and normal, as we have seen with youth tobacco and alcohol consumption.

Cannabis is not universally safe, especially for teens and young adults. Certain brain regions are vulnerable to cannabis, making use hazardous. Use can lead to addiction, particularly in those with a family history, and elevates the risk of suicide, emotional regulation difficulties, treatment-resistant mental illness and susceptibility to other substance addictions.

The children most at risk of these adverse outcomes are those already facing adversity. Those with childhood mental illness, learning difficulties, parental stress and illness, societal discrimination, marginalization and limited support resources are already at elevated risk of a substance-use disorder.

Supporting public cannabis use further endangers vulnerable young people. Restricting public cannabis use can protect children while we continue to promote progress, economic growth and personal freedom.

Sara Polley, Golden Valley

•••

Lately there have been off-the-cuff, not-fully-thought-out, casual recommendations on public marijuana use from our administrators. So they think there are no consequences? I would be livid if I had to be regularly subjected to that skunky secondhand smoke from someone taking a toke two blocks away.

My daughter visited the otherwise lovely Portland, Ore. Walking around everywhere, she noted the pervasive, rancid odor of pot that was inescapable.

I hope the Twin Cities won't emulate the lackadaisical, freewheeling, lowest-common-denominator of acceptance. The general public, notably children, don't want to be captive pot smokers by proxy.

Judy Lai Palermo, Shoreview

I was pleased to read last week's article "Utility fee hike pitched for Mpls. climate fight" (July 20). The mayor's proposed $8 million to $10 million is a down payment on the scaled climate response this city needs.

We need a lot more money, coupled with equitable implementation and fee structures, but it's the beginning of a project where we all chip in a little and get a lot. I'll happily pay my $12 a year to improve the lives of my neighbors across the city (and my own!) while reducing pollution. From cleaner air and more comfortable homes to job creation and lower energy bills, the long-term benefits to the people of Minneapolis are there.

It's time for Minneapolis to be a shining example of what bold, equitable, collaborative climate response can look like. I want to see this money used to set up a long-term program and pilot out retrofits such that we are ready to scale up in subsequent years.

Hannah C. Merrill, Minneapolis

•••

Mayor Jacob Frey and the Minneapolis City Council recently announced their plan to generate between $8 million and $10 million in funding for weatherizing and retrofitting homes. It's a great vision! But there are some key details that are important for the city to include in their implementation.

First, it is not yet clear how the city intends to raise the money with regard to franchise fees — normally, the percent of a building's energy bill that goes toward the city depends on the type of building. Residential buildings are given a 5% fee, commercial and industrial buildings are given a 5.5% fee, and the largest commercial and industrial buildings are only given a 3.5% fee. I hope that the largest commercial and industrial building owners are made to pay fees closer to 5% for this plan, especially since these larger buildings are proportionally the greatest energy users.

Second, it is not yet clear how exactly the money will be used. We need this plan to be scalable so that it has the potential to ramp up in future years — Minneapolis has quite a lot of buildings to retrofit, after all! The plan should include pilot programs, workforce training funds and salaries for program directors.

I hope that the mayor and the City Council will boldly go forward with the implementation of their climate plan, and that they will continue to scale up over the next few years in order to give climate change the attention it deserves.

Joey Rosicka, Minneapolis

Thanks to a recent letter writer for "Find a creative solution" (July 24), asking Mayor Melvin Carter to seek voluntary payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT) to help fund street maintenance. I can fill in a few details on the city's PILOT study as well as on the mayor's lack of interest in exploring alternatives.

After the 2016 Minnesota high court ruling prohibiting St. Paul from collecting street right-of-way assessments from tax-exempt properties, the city enlisted the Citizens League to research the topic. Representatives of colleges, hospitals, churches and nonprofits, along with business leaders, met for six months to study the feasibility of a PILOT program.

As an attorney representing nonprofits, Jack Hoeschler opined that many nonprofits would be willing to "belly up to the bar." And indeed, as a council member, I talked to study participants who said that they were considering continuing to pay the amount of their prior assessment annually as a PILOT payment.

Mayor Carter took office in 2018. The study was shelved, and further action not pursued.

This spring, I participated with Mayor Carter in a St. Paul Area Chamber of Commerce panel discussion on the proposed sales tax. I offered some funding alternatives for consideration that I had proposed during the 2023 budget process. One idea from a former city budget director was to investigate how utility franchise fees could be used to reduce the street maintenance property tax burden. The mayor was not interested.

Last week, I asked the administration if a half-cent sales tax had been considered, given the Minnesota Legislature's imposition of a metro-wide 1% sales tax for transportation and housing that takes effect in October. Suffice it to say I was too late in asking.

By no means do I reject a sales tax as a revenue generator out of hand. But this sales tax has undergone no financial or market analysis and no community process. The concerns of local business were ignored, even though they will be forced to collect the state's highest sales tax at 9.875% and already face heavy competition with suburban retailers.

With very few details, no study of options and with no guardrails on its use, I can't support a tax proposal that will collect a whopping $50 million per year on average and one that includes a provision for bonding, authorizing city leaders to use this tool to create and fund future debt.

Friends and neighbors, take a hard look at this gift horse.

Jane Prince, St. Paul

The writer is the St. Paul City Council member for the Seventh Ward.