Readers Write: Transit, Lucas Bellamy’s death, 14th Amendment, primaries, geography

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

•••

Adam Platt was spot-on when he stated that density and transit are interlinked (“Density minus transit equals failure,” Jan. 23), but his commentary missed the mark on several points.

First, Minneapolis does have influence over transit quality. The city can program stop lights to give consistent green lights to buses and trains, can paint bus lanes on key corridors and can improve multimodal connections to transit. These interventions — which Minneapolis absolutely should employ more broadly — speed up transit trips and can increase frequency.

The city can also advocate for better public transit service — like it did when then-Public Works Director Margaret Anderson Kelliher helped negotiate for historic new transit investments in the 2023 legislative session.

Yet even if Minneapolis didn’t have transit tools at its disposal, the 2040 Plan was an important first step in establishing a denser, more transit-friendly city. Without this first step, we have Minneapolis saying there isn’t enough transit to support density, Metro Transit saying there isn’t enough density to support better transit, Minneapolis saying ... you get the idea. And we and our climate are the ones left holding the bag at the end of that cycle of noninvestment.

Platt states we need better public transit. I encourage him to join those of us advocating at every jurisdictional level for excellent transit and for land uses that will equitably and sustainably serve current and future generations.

Sam Rockwell, Minneapolis

The writer is executive director of the transit advocacy nonprofit Move Minnesota and, as a planning commissioner, voted to approve the Minneapolis 2040 Plan.

As I read Wednesday’s paper, I couldn’t help but believe that if Lucas Bellamy’s last name had been Carlson or Cargill, he would have been safe in a hospital under necessary care (”Lawsuit: On his knees begging for help, man was left to die in jail,” Jan. 24). We may call ourselves “Minnesota Nice” but it has statistically been proven that we have a terrible track record for our citizens who are not European/white in ancestry. We seem particularly inclined to toss away the lives of Black men and Indigenous women. This is not a political problem; this is at a very personal level and even — for those of you who practice — at the foundation of many of our religions. Stop looking for others to solve the ingrained prejudices practiced in Minnesota. If you aren’t part of the solution, you are definitely part of the problem.

Nancy Lanthier Carroll, Roseville

Marshall Tanick mimics Donald Trump-inspired fear mongering and provides his own set of fearful hypotheticals in justifying “Why we should repeal Section 3″ of the 14th Amendment (Opinion Exchange, Jan. 24). And his porous justification: “Repeal might be the rare proposition that is agreeable to nearly all parties and factions.” Hardly, but Trump’s people would be partying in the streets.

Since when was the language of the Constitution conceived to be a general crowd-pleaser? Quite the opposite: It is the grand document for human rights in a democratic republic, and that means naturally offending a lot of biased citizens.

Ironically, Tanick, a constitutional lawyer, would rather erase constitutional law (against insurrection) than see it through — in light of an obvious, live-televised, deadly insurrection. Eventually, an overwhelming majority of citizens will applaud the law that legally bars and then boots from elections anyone attempting to overthrow the government.

Steve Watson, Minneapolis

•••

The argument goes that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is anti-democratic. That Trump’s presidential candidacy must be decided by the voters, not the Constitution. To disqualify him would do irreparable harm to American democracy.

To put it bluntly, this is stupid. Since 2016, the voters have rejected both Trump and the MAGA Republican Party. In 2018, Republicans lost the House of Representatives. In 2020, Trump lost the presidency, and Republicans lost the Senate. In 2022, almost all Trump candidates in competitive races lost, and the Republicans drastically underperformed. Even in 2016, the one time he won, he lost the popular vote.

I’m not worried about Republicans using Section 3 against Democratic nominees. What I am worried about is setting a precedent of exception: that it is OK to deny the decision of the voting public and to try to overturn our constitutional government.

Evan Loewe, Minneapolis

In 1968, Eugene McCarthy won 42% of the vote in the New Hampshire Democratic primary. That threw a formidable roadblock in front of President Lyndon Johnson’s renomination. The media told us so. On Tuesday, Nikki Haley won around 44% of the vote in the New Hampshire Republican primary, but that is not even a speed bump for President Donald Trump. The media told us so. Anyone else see something wrong with this picture?

David Aquilina, Richfield

•••

Voters are understandably aghast to face another Donald Trump-Joe Biden showdown (“Disbelief, denial as rematch looms,” Jan. 20), but unfortunately, media analysts refuse to critically examine the underlying problem: a flawed two-party system. Millions of Americans don’t support either party. With propaganda, one has to be aware of what the status quo is not telling you, as much as their hammering messages. They will not robustly inform you about third parties, independent candidates or expose unfair practices that keep those from success.

The under-30 voters reject “Genocide Joe.” Biden’s eagerness to send an endless supply of weapons to a government that bombs Gaza’s civilians mercilessly in a mad revenge scheme, with no plan for the aftermath, is immoral. Young people are correct to shun him for those reasons, not only because of his age. The narcissistic Trump is an indicted man who bashes immigrants, seeks to undo progressive initiatives and return us to the 1950s.

We have far superior candidates who are articulate in their stance for peace, human rights and justice, like Cornel West and Jill Stein, but the pundits tell us they are “spoilers” we can’t vote for. Something is really wrong when a majority of Americans don’t want this duopoly but are never presented with alternatives or constructive debate on how to change it. In 2024, horrified by an election nightmare that repeats, how much more obvious can it get? It is time to release the body politic from the stranglehold of the two-party system.

Kristina Gronquist, Minneapolis

I consider myself fairly knowledgeable regarding geography, but as I age and recognize the importance of global news, ever more often I find it necessary to Google places mentioned in the Star Tribune. In recent weeks, I’ve had to “revisit” exactly where Yemen sits in relation to Saudi Arabia and Africa. There is a new Hindu temple in Ayodhya, India, but India is a huge country. Is it near Delhi or Calcutta or the border with Pakistan? Poland recently pledged more support for Ukraine. Does Poland share a border with Ukraine? (It does, along with Belarus and Germany, among others.) I’m not alone trying to figure out where events are taking place, am I? Perhaps our newspaper would be willing to initiate a once-weekly map page with notations referencing the week’s news stories. Educators can use this as a teaching tool. And, I wouldn’t mind knowing where Minneapolis, Kansas, is …

Paul Waytz, Minneapolis