The debate between the two political parties in the Minnesota Legislature regarding public safety reminds me of this quote from the late Desmond Tutu: "There comes a point where we need to stop just pulling people out of the river. We need to go upstream and find out why they're falling in." The Republican-led state Senate is proposing stronger consequences for crimes and more policing — a downstream approach ("'Tough on crime' proposal advances," front page, April 26). The Democrat-led House and Gov. Tim Walz are proposing services and supports geared toward young people and families — an upstream approach.
The challenge before our Legislature as a whole is to find the best, evidence-based policies to make Minnesota safer for all. My hope is that real conversation is happening behind the scenes and beyond the "soft on crime" and "tough on crime" labels.
Helen Henly, Minneapolis
STATE FUNDING
Just how it's supposed to work
Another reader ("Fine example of a poor approach," April 11) commented on Rochester using state funds to fix sidewalks, calling it a "local problem, locally caused ... why on earth should the taxpayers of Minnesota pony up nearly $3 million to fix it?" This is a fine example of unnecessary stinginess of taxpayer dollars.
The project is to replace a sidewalk in downtown Rochester, with most of the money coming from the state's Destination Medical Center (DMC) fund. The sidewalk was built in the 1980s; a quick Google search informs us that a sidewalk's life span is usually 25 years. Another search tells us that the DMC fund was hotly debated before passing in 2013, and the fund will improve Rochester as a destination for health and medical research. Former Gov. Mark Dayton put it best: "If this expansion and leap forward were not happening in Rochester, it'd happen somewhere else in the country. ... We're very grateful that it's here in Minnesota."
This is how government spending should work. The state debated and set aside funds for local infrastructure improvements to the home of our largest employer. Beyond making Rochester nicer, the tax revenue from Mayo and other employers in the city will be reinvested for the rest of the state. Seeing this as a waste of state funds is shortsighted. I prefer that state lawmakers invest our tax dollars in projects like this, which improve the state and prevent local tax hikes, rather than use "tax cut" language to turn a temporary surplus into a permanent deficit.
Evan Perera, Savage
GERRYMANDERING
More competition is what we need
I would disagree with the Bloomberg Opinion piece in Wednesday's paper, "Democrats may lose gerrymander gamble" (Opinion Exchange). The results of gerrymandering may hurt Democrats in the near future, as the article indicates, but competitive districts mean that candidates need to reach out to a wider spectrum of voters. Right now we have congressional candidates who espouse extreme-right or extreme-left opinions who easily win elections in partisan-configured districts. A competitive district requires that candidates reach out to voters from each side and take a more moderate stance on issues, which would allow compromise on important issues facing our country. In my opinion, we need to remove the far-right and far-left crazy candidates from office in order to solve our country's problems with commonsense, bipartisan solutions. Candidates in primary elections would soon learn that taking an extreme partisan position would not win in the general election.